Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bills [Lords] (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, originating in the Lords, and referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Rhyl Urban District Council Bill [Lords].

Bill to be read a Second time.

Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:

Kettering Gas Bill.

Bill committed.

Provisional Order Bills (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Ministry of Health Provisional Order (Northampton) Bill.

Bill to be read a Second time Tomorrow.

Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords] (No Standing Orders applicable),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 15th day of March, That, in the case of the following Bill, orginating in the Lords, no Standing Orders are applicable, namely:

Universities (Scotland) Bill [Lords].

Oral Answers to Questions — METALLIFEROUS MINES ADVISORY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: 1.
asked the Secretary for Mines what will be the date of publication of the Report of the Metalliferous Mines Advisory Committee of the Mines Department upon the possibilities of developing or reviving the working of metalliferous and associated deposits in Great Britain?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Isaac Foot): I have recently had interviews with some members of the committee and have decided that the report shall be published. The form in which the report is to be published requires certain consultations which are now taking place but I hope the report can be sent to the printers in about a month's time.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

PENSION SCHEMES.

Mr. TINKER: 3.
asked the Secretary for Mines if pension schemes for miners are in operation in other countries; and, if so, will he give the names of such countries?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: According to the information in my possession regarding European countries, old age pension schemes for miners are in operation in Austria, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and Germany.

Mr. TINKER: Can the Minister say if any of the schemes to which it refers were State-aided?

Mr. FOOT: I will give the information in respect of each country and send it privately to the hon. Member.

GERMANY (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Captain PETER MACDONALD: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can now make a further statement as to the result of the negotiations with the German Government in connection with the recent additional restrictions which have been placed on the importation of British coal into Germany?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): I am not yet in a position to add anything to the statements which I have already made on this subject.

Mr. BATEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to make a statement on this important matter?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: No, I am afraid that I cannot give any definite date. Communications are still passing between us and the German Government on the subject.

Mr. BATEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to make a statement when the House meets again?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, I hope to be able to do so then.

Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that this is retaliatory action, or only in the normal course of restricting imports?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: So far as I know, there is nothing retaliatory about the action of the German Government. They have taken this step for other reasons.

TIMBER SUPPLIES.

Captain P. MACDONALD: 33.
asked the hon. and gallant Member for Rye, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, if he can state what steps, if any, are being taken by the Forestry Commissioners to enable coal mining companies in Great Britain to obtain their supplies of pit timber from sources in the United Kingdom?

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner): The commissioners have appointed a Homegrown Timber Committee to consider how best the utilisation of homegrown timber may be promoted. The committee have had meetings with the
Central Committee of the Mining Association of Great Britain, the railway companies and other bodies interested in the supply, transport and use of mining timber.

Captain MACDONALD: Can the hon. and gallant Member tell us the result of the meeting?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I prefer not to express an opinion in view of the negotiations which are taking place.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: Is it not a fact that British pit props are better timber than anything else, and will my hon. and gallant Friend see that every endeavour is made to get more of them used?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I think they are of equal quality to any pit props in the world.

Lieut.-Commander AGNEW: Can the hon. and gallant Member say whether there has been any increase in the demand for British pit props since the inauguration of the Buy British Campaign?

Sir G. COURTHOPE: I should like to have notice of that question.

NYSTAGMUS.

Mr. PARKINSON: 2.
asked the Secretary for Mines the number of cases of miners' nystagmus which have occurred in the Lancashire coalfields for 1927, 1928, 1929, 1930 and 1931, respectively?

Mr. ISAAC FOOT: The number of cases of nystagmus in Lancashire and Cheshire certified under the Workmen's Compensation Act during the years in question was: in 1928, 319, in 1929, 302, and in 1930, 306. This information is not available for 1927, and the returns for 1931 are not yet completed.

Oral Answers to Questions — IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Mr. ALEXANDER RAMSAY: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what is his attitude to the offers of assistance made by the joint committee of the Federation of British Industries, the Association of British Chambers of Commerce and the British Chamber of Shipping, appointed to consider questions of Empire economic policy with particular reference to the forthcoming
Ottawa Conference; how many times he has met this committee; and to what extent he proposes to avail himself of its services?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): His Majesty's Government welcome the offer of assistance which has been made to them by the joint committee referred to by the hon. Member, and are availing themselves of it to the fullest possible extent. I and other members of the Government and our advisers have already met those associated with the work of the committee, and arrangements are being made for the committee and the Ministers and Government Departments concerned to remain in close touch with one another.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say when he will be in a position to state to the House the extent to which the co-operation between the monetary organisations and the Government will be established?

Mr. THOMAS: The co-operation is already established. I assume the hon. Member has in mind when I shall be in a position to announce the policy which has been taken on their advice. I hope to do that before the House rises for the Adjournment.

Mr. HANNON: The right hon. Gentleman has interpreted my supplementary question exactly.

Mr. RAMSAY: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs if he proposes to include in the British delegation to the Ottawa. Conference representatives of British industrial and commercial organisations; and if such representatives will have the full status of delegates?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply on this subject given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. RAMSAY: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it will be impossible to get the best business men to do the work of this country at Ottawa if, when they get there, they are relegated to corridors and waiting rooms?

Mr. TH0MAS: The best business men are already in consultation with the Government, and they do not take the pessimistic view which is taken by the hon. Member. They know that they
are being consulted with the genuine desire to get the benefit of their advice, and that their advice will not be ignored.

Mr. RAMSAY: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that I am not taking a pessimistic view, but that I am trying to get him to take an opimistic view, and a business one?

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the term "industrial organisations" includes representatives of trade unions?

Mr. THOMAS: In addition to meeting business representatives I have also met the General Council of the Trades Union Congress, and I look upon their assistance and co-operation as equally as valuable as that of the others.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

COTTON INDUSTRY.

Mr. HAMILTON KERR: 10.
asked ale President of the Board of Trade the number of cotton spinning and weaving companies which have, within the last 12 months, been compelled to call up the balance of unpaid shares and the numbers of shareholders thus affected?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I regret that the information for which my hon. Friend asks is not available.

CANADIAN IMPORT DUTIES (BRITISH GOODS).

Mr. LAMBERT: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the dollar value of sterling fixed by the Canadian Government for the payment of special duties on British imports into Canada; and how such fixation of sterling values affects the preference given to British manufacturers over those of the United States?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The fixed value of the pound sterling for special duty purposes is $4.40 for imports from the United Kingdom entitled to entry under the Canadian preferential tariff. So long as the current rate of exchange of sterling into Canadian dollars remains below $4.40 the effect of the special duty is that United Kingdom goods do not enjoy in Canada, as compared with the goods of the United States and certain other countries, the whole of the benefit which they would otherwise enjoy as a result
of the present position of the currency exchanges. I ought perhaps to add that so far as the ordinary duty, as distinguished from the special duty, is concerned the value of United Kingdom goods is converted into Canadian currency at the par rate of exchange, and they therefore enjoy some advantage in this respect over United States goods so long as the United States currency is appreciated in relation to that of Canada, as the value of United States goods is calculated at the rate of exchange between the two countries current at the time.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Does not that emphasise the necessity for an Imperial marketing policy?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot see that it has any bearing on that matter.

DUMPING.

Lord SCONE: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if it is the intention of the Government to introduce a comprehensive Bill to prevent dumping; and, if so, whether he can state the approximate date?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Various meanings have been attached to the word "dumping" and I do not know which meaning my Noble Friend has in mind. In any case the Government would prefer to watch the working of the Import Duties Act before embarking upon further fiscal legislation of a general kind.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman indicate to the House what he means by the word "dumping," because the dumping continues all the time?

Mr. SPEAKER: He certainly cannot do so now.

CRUDE TAR PRICE (SCARBOROUGH GAS COMPANY).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 16.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the representation made to him concerning the price of crude tar charged by the Scarborough Gas Company to road makers and repairers; and, if so, will he state what action he has taken?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have received a communication regarding the price charged by the Scarborough Gas Com-
pany to tradesmen for tar. Tar prices in general have increased since 1931, when extremely low prices were ruling. Under the systems of controlling the dividends of statutory gas companies any profit made from tar or other residuals are allocated to the companies' general revenue from which increased dividends may be paid only as gas prices are reduced.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scarborough Gas Company, between October, 1931, and March, 1932, have increased the price of crude tar from £2 5s. to £3 10s., and is he also aware that the same gas company have a Bill before this House in which they are asking for permission to dispose of £15,000 of surplus profits over and above their normal dividends? What action does he propose to take?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot undertake to debate a Private Bill at Question Time.

Mr. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman must be aware—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a speech.

Mr. WILLIAMS: On a point of Order. In view of the fact that this commodity is a raw material, has not the right hon. Gentleman some responsibility to see that the price of the raw material is not excessive?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has had his answer.

WAR MATERIAL (EXPORT).

Mr. VYVYAN ADAMS: 17.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in order to assist the preservation of peace, he will now consider discontinuing the licence of the export of arms and ammunition to the Far East?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answers which I gave him on the 4th and 9th February, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. ADAMS: Has the right hon. Gentleman conceived the possibility of these arms and ammunition being used against our own nationals?

DUTCH TEA.

Mr. KERR: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount of
offerings of Dutch tea in public auction from 1st January to 19th March, 1932, as expressed in chests, and how the total compares with the chests of similar tea offered for the same period last year?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: According to the reports of the Tea Brokers' Association of London, 150,801 packages of Java and Sumatra tea were offered in auction in the period 1st January to 16th March, 1932, as compared with 146,087 packages in the corresponding period of 1931. Particulars up to the 19th March are not yet available.

IMPORTS.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 19.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state the quantity and value of the following imports into the United Kingdom in 1931: builders' woodwork from the Soviet Union, Sweden, and the United States; liquid glucose from the Soviet Union and the United States; confectionery from the Soviet Union, sheep and lamb skins, woolled, from the Soviet Union, Spain, Chile, Argentine, South Africa, and Australia; maize starch, edible, from the Soviet Union, the United States, and the Netherlands; maize starch, not edible, from the Soviet Union, the United States, the Netherlands and Germany; skins and furs, not enumerated, dressed, not leather, from the Soviet Union, France, Germany, British India, and Canada; canned salmon from the Soviet Union, the United States, Japan, and Canada; matches, safety, containers over 20, from the Soviet Union, Sweden, and Belgium; and glue and size from the Soviet Union, Germany, Belgium, and France?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am having a statement prepared which I will forward to the Noble Lady.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: May I ask whether the statement will be published in the OFFICIAL REPORT?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I have not undertaken to have it printed, because it is a large and expensive return.

Mr. MACLEAN: This is a question which is asked for the purpose of receiving an oral reply, and is it not in the interests of the House generally that the information should be available to hon. Members?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: It is an expensive business to print in the OFFICIAL REPORT a large and elaborate statement, and I cannot undertake to put the Department to that expense.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is not the short reply that the information asked for can be obtained in the Board of Trade Statistical Abstract?

Mr. THORNE: Why should a woman have a privilege over men in this House?

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: If the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) is so anxious to have this information, cannot a copy be sent to him?

FRANCE (IMPORT RESTRICTIONS).

Mr. HANNON: 20.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has examined the text of the decree issued by the French Government on the 17th instant, which introduces quotas for the import into France of machine tools and various articles produced by iron and steel firms in this country; and if the effect of this action on British export trade will be brought to the notice of the Imports Advisory Committee?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The task of the Import Duties Advisory Committee is to recommend rates of duty applicable to goods imported from all foreign countries and it is no part of their function to consider any impediments which may be placed in the way of United Kingdom trade by individual foreign countries.

Mr. HANNON: But what is the attitude of the Board of Trade? May I ask whether it is not the function of the Board of Trade to take some definite action when discrimination is placed on British products going into France or into any other foreign country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, that is a part of their duties, and those duties the Board of Trade perform.

Mr. HANNON: But will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he is going to perform his duty in this case?

Mr. MANDER: Is not this a form of bullying on the part of the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon)?

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SHIPPING (EARNINGS).

Mr. HANNON: 21.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the amount representing gross earnings of foreign and colonial shipping in carrying goods to and from the United Kingdom for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The desired information is not available.

FOREIGN AND COLONIAL CAPITAL (INTEREST).

Mr. HANNON: 22.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any figures are available of the estimated amount of interest paid to foreign and colonial owners of capital invested in the United Kingdom for the years 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: My hon. Friend will find, in the article on the balance of trade published in the "Board of Trade Journal" for 18th February, a statement that the amount of interest and dividends paid on long term investments in the United Kingdom to persons not resident in this country had been estimated at about £15 million in 1929 and that in 1931 a somewhat smaller amount may have been payable.

ABNORMAL IMPORTATIONS ACT.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: 23.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the Abnormal Importations Act ceases to operate on 19th May and that manufacturers are refraining from entering into new contracts on this account, so that valuable trade which has been recovered under the protection of the Act may now be lost, he will make some statement as to the continuance of the Act beyond 19th May before the House rises for the Easter Recess?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on this subject yesterday to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Mr. Boulton) by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

FACTORY SITES.

Mr. SAVERY: 24.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken by his Department to satisfy the foreign demand for factory sites in this country?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Conant) on 25th February.

IMPORT DUTIES (ADVISORY COMMITTEE).

Mr. RAMSAY: 48.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the import duties advisory board has made any report to him in regard to its policy, or if he has any information as to when it will do so?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 9th March last in reply to a question put by my hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. RAMSAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the business and commercial community are having very great difficulty in making their future arrangements, because they do not know whether this Board will support a general policy of tariffs or a particular policy of tariffs or any policy of tariffs at all, and will he use his influence with the Board to get an early declaration of policy from them?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I might remind my hon. Friend of a notice issued by the Committee to the Press on 9th March, in which they said:
In view of the short period remaining for the expiration of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act, 1931, the Committee will obviously have to be guided at the outset mainly by considerations of a general character, leaving for later review the detailed circumstances affect rig particular industries and trades and individual classes of articles.

Mr. RAMSAY: But will the right hon. Gentleman have in mind that the business community is very seriously disturbed by the fact that the Government have now been in operation for five months without succeeding in getting rid of industrial depression, and will he personally make an endeavour to give the business community the information necessary?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The Committee has not been appointed for five months. It has been in operation only a short time, and I do not think there is any call for me to interfere at this stage.

GRAIN (IMPORT DUTY.)

Mr. LEES-JONES: 60.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will issue regulations directing that the method of assessing duty, under the Import Duties Act, on grain coming into the ports of the United Kingdom shall be changed from an ad valorem basis to a weight basis, in view of the fact that grain traders at some ports are placed at a disadvantage with competitors at other ports in the Kingdom?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Major Elliot): In view of the wide range of grain prices I do not think a specific rate of duty could be devised which would not produce inequalities as between different importations.

MILK (IMPORT DUTY).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: 61.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what proportion of the milk imports into this country are subject to the new duties imposed under the Import Duties Act on the basis of the trade figures for 1931?

Major ELLIOT: It is estimated on the basis of the trade accounts for 1931 that the general ad valorem duty will be paid on approximately 22 per cent. of the milk imports.

Sir C. CAYZER: 62.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the fact that duty is not being charged under the Import Duties Act on imported sweetened condensed milk because such milk is already taxed on its sugar content; and if he will state for what reason this decision was reached, in view of the fact that double duties in respect of the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and under legislation previous thereto are being charged on a number of other important manufactured articles?

Major ELLIOT: There is no analogy between the Abnormal Importations Act and the Import Duties Act since the object of the former was expressly to prevent the influx of certain goods into this country. I may point out that it is open to the advisory committee to consider the case of any composite goods and to recommend additional duties in respect of them.

Sir C. CAYZER: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware of the great dis-
appointment caused to home milk producers by this decision; and is he also aware that unless it is rescinded no increase in the home production of condensed milk is likely to take place?

Major ELLIOT: This decision in no way specially applies to milk. It is a general decision applying to all manner of goods which were recently brought in under the Import Duties Act.

Sir C. CAYZER: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that there is an ample surplus of milk in this country to provide for our total requirements of condensed milk; and why is it necessary to import from abroad millions of pounds worth of a product which has to be marked "unfit for infants"?

Major ELLIOT: No doubt, those matters will be brought under review by the committee.

IMPORTS.

Mr. JOEL: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in the case of imports the volume of which is not affected by the Import Duties Act, or by the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act and the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act, his Department is making inquiries to ascertain whether such imports are assisted or subsidised by the Governments of the countries from which they come?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am not aware of any case in which the imposition of a duty under the Abnormal Importations (Customs Duties) Act or the Horticultural Products (Emergency Customs Duties) Act has not resulted in a diminution of imports, and it is too early to judge of the results of the Import Duties Act. There is no evidence to show that any imports to which my hon. Friend refers are being maintained by export subsidies.

Oral Answers to Questions — MERCANTILE MARINE (EXAMINATION CENTRES).

Captain McEWEN: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any final decision has yet been taken in regard to the closing down of the examination centre at the port of Leith?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: Yes, Sir. The examination centre at Leith will be closed after the end of July.

Captain McEWEN: In view of the objections that have been put forward, will the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to undertake a revision of that decision?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: There have been representations made by those who are interested, but I am afraid that the necessity of our making economies makes that impracticable.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the number of examiners at present employed and whether this measure will make it possible to reduce that number?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I cannot give that information without notice, but it will enable us to dispense with some of the duplication which is at present necessary.

Captain McEWEN: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is not a question of Leith only, but the whole of the East of Scotland.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he has considered the representations sent to him from Goole and Hull concerning the proposal to close down the Hull examination centre, engineer officers, etc.; and, if so, will he state the nature of his reply?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The representations made have been carefully considered, but I regret I am unable to vary the decision to close the examination centre at Hull for officers of the Mercantile Marine. Hull will still be a centre where fishermen can be examined for certificates of competency as skipper and second hand.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this matter is causing great apprehension in the minds of the students and their parents, who make very great sacrifices to enable their children to secure the necessary qualifications?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I am very well aware of those representations, but I think they are very much exaggerated.

Mr. WILLIAMS: In view of the comparatively small sum which will be saved by the closing of this centre, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it will create a hardship incomparably worse upon the parents?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: I do not think it will place them under any great disability. They will be able to continue their studies without any inteference, but these are economies which we must press through.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY (COMPENSATION CLAIM).

Mr. LEWIS: 25.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if his attention has been called to the application from Mr. A. E. Symonds, of 11, Cannon Street, Colchester, for compensation for the death of his son, the late Trooper W. C. Symonds, No. 547,596, 12th Lancers, in the course of army manoeuvres last, year; and whether he will reconsider the decision of the War Office not to grant any such compensation?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): Mr. Symonds is not eligible for a dependant's pension, and I regret that I cannot reconsider the decision.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS.

SCOTTISH EDUCATION DEPARTMENT.

Mr. LEONARD: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of staff of the Scottish Education Department, other than typists and messengers, employed in London, and the annual cost?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): The staff of the Scottish Education Department employed in London, other than typists and messengers, consists of 55 officials, and the annual cost is £22,926.

INLAND REVENUE DEPARTMENT.

Mr. LEWIS: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to the wording of the regulations governing the appointment of third-class valuers in the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue Department, wherein it is laid down that preference will be given to candidates who served in His Majesty's Forces between 4th August, 1914, and 11th November, 1918, but wherein it is also laid down that candidates must be between the ages of 25 and 30 years; and, seeing that even, although a candidate
for the purpose of determining his age may deduct from his age time served in His Majesty's Forces between 4th August, 1914, and 11th November, 1918, it would appear impossible for those who are old enough to have served between those years to now come within the age limit laid down, will he cause these regulations to be re-drafted so that a preference may be given to ex-service men in making these appointments?

Major ELLIOT: The age rules for the recruitment of third-class valuers in the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue Department were framed in 1926, when the first selection under the present rules was held; the provisions of age extension for Great War service and preference to ex-service men were included for that selection, and also for subsequent selections held in 1929 and 1930. I am aware that with the lapse of time the concession to which my hon. Friend refers is now very limited in effect. The application made in response to the recent advertisement indicate, however, that the provision continues to be of advantage to certain ex-service men who would otherwise be excluded. The general age limits prescribed for these appointments have been fixed with regard to the interests of the public service, and I regret that I cannot see my way to modify them.

Mr. LEWIS: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman give an example of how an ex-service man can come within the scope of this arrangement?

Major ELLIOT: I would refer the hon. Member to the second paragraph of my answer, which states that we are still getting applications, in response to the recent advertisements, from men to whom this concession is an advantage. I should be very happy to show him some if he desires.

Mr. McENTEE: 67.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether the medical officer in the office of director of stamping who receives £380 from the revenue of Britain and a pension of £231 from Nyasaland funds has a full-time appointment; what is his age; and whether his duties consist in giving medical attendance when required in the Department to the 413 members of the staff?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member is evidently under a misapprehension. The medical officer in question acts for the whole Inland Revenue Department and not for the Stamping Branch only. The appointment is a part-time one and the present holder is 54 years of age.

WOMEN.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: 63.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if he will arrange that in future estimates the number of women in each grade shall be shown separately with their scale of pay from the number of men in the same grade?

Major ELLIOT: In cases where men and women are employed in the same grade, it is already the practice to show the men's and women's scales of pay separately in the annual Estimates, but it would not be possible, at the time when the Estimates are prepared, to make an accurate forecast of the number of men and women who would be employed in each grade during the ensuing financial year.

Mr. PARKINSON: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the number of temporary women pension officers; and whether it is proposed to put them on the establishment of the Customs and Excise Department?

Major ELLIOT: The number of unestablished women pension officers employed in the Customs and Excise Department is 65. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.

TEMPORARY STAFF.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 65.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware of the anxiety of the temporary staff in the Civil Service as to their future position; and whether he is prepared to assure this House that the recommendations of the Tomlin Commission, made some eight months ago, that an immediate establishment should be granted to those with long service will be given effect to?

Major ELLIOT: The recommendations referred to by the hon. Member are under the consideration of the Government, and I hope that it will be possible at an early date to initiate discussions upon them with the staff organisations concerned.

LAND REGISTRY.

Mr. PRICE: 66.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state the object of the questionnaire which has been issued to the staff of the Land Registry, map branch department, on the subject of their educational record and experience; and whether any reduction or transfer of staff in this department is contemplated?

Major ELLIOT: The questionnaire referred to was issued in the normal course in order to ascertain the professional or other qualifications possessed by certain grades of the staff with a view to promotion. Apart from variations in the temporary staff due to fluctuations of the work, no reductions or transfers of the mapping staff are at present contemplated.

ACCOMMODATION.

Mr. G. MACDONALD: 73.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether proposals are under consideration for improving the accommodation in the public offices of the probate and registry departments, Somerset House?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): The answer is in the negative.

Mr. PARKINSON: 74.
asked the First Commissioner of Works what premises in London are covered by the provision of £103,800 for rent, etc.; and by what Department is each building occupied?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: If, as I assume, the hon. Member refers to the provision made in Subhead L of the Vote for Revenue Buildings, 1932, Class VII (10), the provision of £103,800 covers the rents of 107 premises in the London postal area. All the premises covered by this provision are occupied by the Inland Revenue Department.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING BILL.

Mr. MACPHERSON: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now given consideration to the protests made by and on behalf of the Scottish burghs against the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Bill which place a further limitation on their status and powers; and what action he proposes to take?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. As the result of a meeting which my right hon. Friend has had with representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs, he is hopeful that it may be possible by means of certain Amendments to make the Bill more acceptable to the small burghs than it is at present. The precise wording of the Amendments is still under consideration.

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES (GRANTS).

Lord SCONE: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any education authorities, in their replies to the Circular issued by the Scottish Education Department on the 30th January of this year, intimated their intention of reducing the grants made by them to the Scottish agricultural colleges; and, if so, will he state the names of the authorities and the amount of the reduction proposed in each case?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The replies received by the Scottish Education Department to the Circular issued to education authorities on 30th January last do not contain any intimation of this nature.

Lord SCONE: Is the right hon. and gallant Member aware that I have received a, communication from one authority in the North of. Scotland intimating that such a reduction has been made by at least one county and that a copy of that communication was sent to the Secretary of State?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No, I think the position is that in the case the Noble Lord has in mind the education committee has come to a provisional decision in favour of a reduction, but their conclusion has not yet been reviewed by the education authority of the area, which is the county council.

Lord SCONE: Is it not a fact that the reply of the right hon. and gallant Member is scarcely accurate?

MEAT SALES (PROSECUTIONS).

Mr. R. W. SMITH: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many prosecutions there have been in Scotland in each of the last five years under the Sale of Food Order, 1921, for imported meat sold as home-killed meat?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am making inquiries and I shall communicate the results to my hon. Friend as soon as they are available.

WHEAT ACREAGE, PERTHSHIRE,

Lord SCONE: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the acreage under wheat in Perthshire in each of the years 1911, 1921, 1929, 1930, and 1931?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As the reply consists of a table of figures I propose, with my Noble Friend's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the reply:

The information desired by my Noble Friend is as follows:



Acres.


1911
7,005


1921
8,182


1929
6,800


1930
7,475


1931
6,491

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Mr. LEWIS: 32.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will reconsider the application from Mr. Charles Harold Nias, of Ashdene, High Street, West Mersea, Essex, for a grant of a constant attendance allowance, seeing that Mr. Nias was recently found by a police officer lying helpless at the side of the road, which supports the contention set out in the medical certificate already furnished to the Minister that he is unfit to go about alone as a result of war disability?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam): No fresh application in this case has been received. I am, however, causing inquiry to be made into the applicant's present condition and will communicate later with the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIVATE SCHOOLS (REPORT).

Mr. WEST RUSSELL: 35.
asked the President of the Board of Education the date on which the members of the departmental committee on private schools signed their report, and the date upon which it is proposed to publish the report?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Sir Donald Maclean): The report to which the hon. Member refers was signed on 10th March and submitted to me a few days ago. I have given instructions that it shall be published forthwith and copies will be available as soon as the work of printing can be completed.

Mr. RUSSELL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the forecast of that report which appears in the "Times" to-day, said to emanate from the Press Association, is correct?

Sir D. MACLEAN: It is not authorised in any way, and it is incorrect.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

REGENT'S PARK (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. DENMAN: 36.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that many drivers of motor cars disregard the speed limit in Regent's Park, especially after dark; and whether he will take steps to se that the law is enforced?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Oliver Stanley): Special attention is already given by the police to this class of offence, and 422 cases, including 190 arising after dusk, were reported during the three months ended 19th March, 1932. 144 of these cases are still pending, in 243 convictions were obtained, and the remaining 35 were dealt with by a caution.

MOTOR PASSENGER VEHICLES (SPEED LIMIT).

Mr. MABANE: 38.
asked the Home Secretary how many prosecutions have been instituted since 10th March, 1932, against drivers and/or proprietors of Green Line and other similar heavy passenger coaches for exceeding the speed limit of 30 miles an hour in Central London and, in particular, on the Bayswater Road, the Edgware Road, the Embankment and Whitehall?

Mr. STANLEY: In the period 10th to 19th March, inclusive, proceedings have been commenced against two passenger coach drivers for exceeding the speed limit in this area. Neither case was on one of the four roads mentioned. Two further cases, both on the Victoria Embankment, have been reported with a view to proceedings.

Mr. MABANE: Is my hon. Friend aware that these heavy passenger vehicles continue to treat the 30 miles speed limit with contempt, and that the slaughter of the innocents continues unabated?

Mr. STANLEY: Perhaps the result of the two further cases now pending will have some effect.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON-MADE GOODS.

Mr. THORNE: 37.
asked the Home Secretary if he will enumerate the articles made by prison labour in His Majesty's prisons; the value of such articles over a period of 12 months to the nearest available date; and how the articles are disposed of?

Mr. STANLEY: A list of prison industries, with the annual value of the various products, is given in Appendix 7 of the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners, the latest issue of which is Command Paper 3868. Except for a very occasional sale of a few special articles to private purchasers, at a price not below the market price, all articles made in prisons in England and Wales are used by the Prison Department or Government Departments.

Sir F. HALL: Has my hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the enormous increase in prison-made goods in Soviet Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT (OLDHAM).

Mr. CROSSLEY: 39.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will give the number of employed persons in the area served by the Oldham Employment Exchange on 15th September, 1931, and the latest available figure?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Statistics of the numbers of insured persons in employment are not available in respect of particular areas within Great Britain, and I regret that I am, therefore, unable to give the information desired.

Mr. CROSSLEY: 40.
asked the Minister of Labour how many married women were registered at the Oldham Employment Exchange on 15th September, 1931, and the latest figure; and, if there is a decrease, what percentage of that decrease is represented by reabsorption into industry?

Mr. HUDSON: At 14th September, 1931, the number of married women on the register of the Oldham Employment Exchange was approximately 3,980. At 25th January, 1932, the latest date for which figures are available, the corresponding total was 1,973. I am unable to say what percentage of this decrease was due to reabsorption into industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (LABOUR CONDITIONS).

Mr. THORNE: 41.
asked the Minister of Labour if he has any information about the hours of labour and pay for Russian workmen in the felling timber camps under the control of the Soviet Government?

Mr. HUDSON: According to "Voprosy Truda," the monthly journal of the Russian Commissariat of Labour, the average daily earnings of Russian forestry workers in the first quarter of 1931 were 201 copecks for foot workers and 351 copecks for mounted workers. As regards hours of labour, the latest information in my possession relates to February-March, 1929, when the average length of the working day was reported, in a publication issued by the U.S.S.R. State Planning Commission, to be 11.3 hours, including breaks of about 1.3 hours.

Sir F. HALL: How much is that in English money?

Mr. HUDSON: At the nominal parity of exchange, one copeck, in the first quarter of 1931, was slightly over a farthing.

Sir F. HALL: I hope that hon. Members will "Read, mark, learn and inwardly digest."

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR INDUSTRY.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: 42.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether steps are being taken to obtain from factories in receipt of the beet-sugar subsidy more accurate estimates of their output and subsidy requirements; and whether, where it is found that the output has been under-estimated, the subsidy will be paid only upon the original output estimated?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir John Gilmour): I am satisfied that the estimates of output and subsidy
requirements submitted by the beet sugar factories from time to time are as accurate as is possible in the circumstances. As regards the second part of the question, even if such a course were desirable I have no power to withhold payment of subsidy on sugar actually produced from home-grown beet.

Mr. MACLEAN: 43.
asked the Minister of Agriculture the number of factories in receipt of the beet-sugar subsidy in which sugar from abroad was melted down last year; the total quantity of such sugar; whether they received any subsidy upon it: and, if so, how much?

Sir J. GILMOUR: During the 1930–31 "off"-season, 11 British beet-sugar factories refined about 195,000 tons of imported raw sugar. The answer to the third part of the question is in the negative.

Mr. MACLEAN: 44.
asked 'the Minister of Agriculture the total amount of beet-sugar subsidy paid to the latest convenient date; the amount retained by the companies; and the amount received by the farmers?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Payments of subsidy under the British Sugar (Subsidy) Act, 1925, and repayable advances under the British Sugar Industry (Assistance) Act, 1931, up to and including 19th March, 1932, amount to £24,331,333. I am unable to say precisely in what pro-potion the growers and the factories respectively have participated in these payments.

Mr. MACLEAN: Could not the right hon. Gentleman obtain some information relating to the proportions in which these two parties receive the subsidy?

Sir J. GILMOUR: Only very rough estimates can he made, and I am not in a position to make a definite statement.

Mr. GROVES: 57.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the statement by the Committee on National Expenditure that the total State assistance to the beet-sugar industry during the year 1930–31 worked out at nearly £300 per man and that the subsidy thereto is fixed by law until 1934, he will consider the desirability of reducing the duty rebate to home-grown sugar in such a way as to benefit the national finances and to eliminate those
activities of the beet-sugar factories which could be carried out by non-subsidised refineries?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given yesterday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on this subject.

Mr. GROVES: 59.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what were the duties on sugar exceeding 98 per cent. polarisation imported from foreign and Colonial sources, respectively, in 1924 before the Sugar Subsidy Act was brought into force; what was the rate of those duties in 1925 after the said Act had been passed; and what are those duties to-day?

Major ELLIOT: I will send the hon. Member a statement giving the figures asked for.

Commander MARSDEN: 69.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the quantities of raw sugar imported into this country recently for refining by beet-sugar factories; and whether he can state the amount of such imports during each of the past four weeks, together with the comparable imports for the same period in 1931?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I understand that the total imports of raw sugar into this country have considerably increased during the last few months, but I have no information as to the extent to which this sugar is being refined by the beet-sugar factories.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE.

ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY.

Mr. BURNETT: 46.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the loss of educational value which the music festival movement is likely to sustain through a charge of Entertainments Duty being imposed upon single-entry classes, he is prepared to remit the charge?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my Noble Friend the Member for Perth. (Lord Scone) on the 23rd February, of which I am sending him a copy.

Mr. BURNETT: Do we understand that that decision will deprive choirs of an opportunity of getting outside criticism, which is such a valuable part of a musical festival?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir.

Mr. SIMMONDS: 54.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that one of the conditions upon which certain educational entertainments are being exempted from Entertainments Duty is that no music, not even the national anthem, shall be played at them; and whether he will reconsider the matter and allow a limited amount of music at such entertainments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I am aware that in the case of certain classes of entertainments where exemption from Entertainments Duty is claimed on educational grounds exemption is granted subject to the condition that musical items are not included in the programme. This condition would not apply to the playing of the national anthem, but I cannot undertake to widen the scope of exemption from the Entertainments Duty in the manner proposed.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the national anthem was specifically prohibited at one of these entertainments?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: No, Sir. I am not aware of that, but if the hon. Member will give me particulars I will gladly look into the matter.

BEER DUTY.

Mr. DONNER: 47.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the bottling of beer in this country gives employment to British labour, he will consider, when considering the Beer Duty, allowing the importation of beer for bottling at a lower rate than beer imported in bottles?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Sir ERNEST SHEPPERSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider a lower rate of interest being charged on beer proved to be made of British malt?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: That is really my hon. Friend's suggestion.

INCOME TAX.

Mr. THOMAS COOK: 49.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the amount paid in Income Tax by farmers under Schedule D assessment during each of the last three financial years?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I am unable to furnish the information desired by my hon. Friend as no separate statistics are collected in respect of Schedule D assessments on farming.

Mr. HUTCHISON: 50.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will incorporate in his Budget provisions to continue by law in future the arrangement made by Income Tax collectors for the granting of special facilities in the payment of Income Tax in the first quarter of this year?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I regret that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. McENTEE: 53.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the total contribution paid by the Exchequer to the Government and administration in Northern Ireland during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1931; and what was the total revenue received by the Exchequer from Northern Ireland?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The latest figures at present available are those for the year ended 31st March, 1931. In that year the total payments made by the British Government to the Government of Northern Ireland amounted to £801,434, and the provisional Imperial contribution paid by the Government of Northern Ireland was £507,000. The latter figure is subject to adjustment in the light of the actual figures of revenue and expenditure for the year.

MONETARY SYSTEM.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: 56.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the economic financial position of this country and the Empire, the decline of the national income and commodity values, the state of unemployment and the consequences arising therefrom, he will consider the setting up of a committee, comprising representatives of this House, the Treasury, the Board of Trade, the Bank of England, trading banks, in-
dustrialists, export merchants, and trade unions, to examine the position in regard to the complexity of Britain's domestic and overseas interests and to review all proposals relating to the reform of our monetary system and to crystallise into a practical scheme to be submitted to this House before the holding of the Imperial Economic Conference?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The questions to which my hon. Friend refers are receiving the constant attention of His Majesty's Government. The fullest advantage is taken of the existing arrangements for keeping in close contact with representative opinion, and I do not think that the setting up of a, special committee would be either necessary or desirable.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH FREE STATE (LAND PURCHASE ANNUITIES).

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 51.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state the total capitalised value of the land annuities payable by the Irish Free State to the Exchequer of Great Britain, and the term of years during which such payments still remain to be paid?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The total amount of the advances in respect of which land purchase annuities are payable by His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State to the National Debt Commissioners is approximately 289,500.000. The sinking funds accumulated in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners towards the repayment of these advances amount to approximately £13,500,000, leaving about £76,000,000 still to be met by future accumulations of the sinking fund payments. The period during which the annuities remain to be paid varies according to the provisions of the several Acts tinder which the advances have been made, and also depends in general on the rate at which the guaranteed stocks can be acquired by the sinking funds, And hence on the market prices of these stocks ruling from time to time. Thus no reliable estimate of the period is possible.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: 52.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the next payment of the land annuities payable by the Irish Free State to the Exchequer of Great Britain falls due?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: The next payment of the annuities, which are paid direct to the National Debt Commissioners and not, into the Exchequer, falls due in the latter part of June next.

Mr. MARJORIBANKS: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear while there is yet time that the policy announced by the President of the Irish Executive is a repudiation of the most flagrant kind and is not a matter for litigation?

HON. MEMBERS: Order!

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 7.
(for Colonel WEDGWOOD) asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether his attention has been called to the position in Ireland; and when the next payment of the land purchase annuities from Ireland is due?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: The general attitude of His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is as stated in the reply which I gave to the right hon. Gentleman on 1st March, namely, that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom regard the relations between this country and the Irish Free State as resting upon the Treaty of 1921. As regards the particular question of the land annuities, I have seen various statements in the Press as to action now proposed by His Majesty's Government in the Irish Free State, but I have received no official communication from the Irish Free State Government with regard to it. The next payment is due in the latter part of June.
I ought to inform the House that since drafting that answer, and indeed since I have arrived at the House, I have received officially from the Irish Free State High Commissioner in London a very important and serious document dealing with this situation. It is too important to answer now, but I will take the earliest opportunity, probably tomorrow, to give an official answer. It is only fair to say that this communication only came to me since I drafted the answer, and I felt that I ought not to leave the House in any doubt as to the gravity and seriousness of the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEWSPAPER INSURANCE.

Mr. W. RUSSELL: 35.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will
review for revenue purposes the practice of compounding the 6d. duty on insurance policies under Section 116 of the Stamp Act, 1931, since it produces only an estimated £36,000 for the current year upon the millions of policies and contracts insuring registered readers of newspapers and magazines?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: I have noted my hon. Friend's suggestion, but he will not, of course, expect me to anticipate the Budget statement.

Oral Answers to Questions — SMUGGLING.

Mr. HANLEY: 68.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of cases of smuggling by sea or air into the United Kingdom, other than through the ports, that have been brought to his notice during last year, and the number of cases where an arrest has been made?

Major ELLIOT: My hon. Friend will appreciate that it would not be in the public interest to disclose the information desired.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 70.
asked the hon. Member for Monmouth, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether Dutch Amstel beer is supplied for the use of Members in the House of Commons?

Sir JOHN GANZONI: (for Sir LEOLIN FOR ESTI ER-WALKER): No order for beer has been given to the Amstel Brewery since 1914, and no foreign beer of any kind is now being supplied to the Kitchen Committee.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Is the hon. Gentleman and the House aware of the fact that this beer is being sold freely in Rangoon and elsewhere all over the East marked "as supplied to the House of Commons"?

Sir J. GANZONI: Yes, Sir; and attempts have been made to stop that practice ever since 1914. I now hold a letter, dated 14th September, 1931, undertaking that those labels will be withdrawn and that the agents will be instructed to cease thus advertising this beer.

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: Will the hon. Gentleman do everything he can to make his answer public, so that this firm will be brought to some idea of the responsibilities of decent trading?

Sir J. GANZONI: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — NAVAL ARMAMENTS.

Mr. MANDER: 71.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the attitude of His Majesty's Government towards maintaining the Washington Naval Treaty intact, as stated by the Foreign Minister in his speech to the Disarmament Conference on 8th February, it is intended to revise the policy proposed by Vice-Admiral Pound at the Naval sub-committee of the Conference on 14th March?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): No, Sir. Vice-Admiral Pound repeated at the meeting of the Naval Commission on the 15th of March that His Majesty's Government desired that the Washington and London Naval Treaties should be maintained intact until the end of 1936, and that nothing should be done to prejudice what had already been achieved by them. The object of the proposal made by the Admiral on the previous day was to provide that the obligations undertaken under Article 17 of the Washington Naval Treaty should not be perpetuated in the Disarmament Convention after the expiration of the Washington Naval Treaty on the 31st December, 1936. There was therefore no inconsistency between my right hon. Friend's statement on the 8th of February and Vice-Admiral Pound's proposal on the 14th of March.

Mr. MANDER: Has this proposal in effect been withdrawn?

Mr. EDEN: I understand that the proposal was not carried.

Oral Answers to Questions — MALTA.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 72.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he intends to enforce a decision on the language question in Malta forthwith, or whether it is his intention to await the result of an election and accept the decision of a majority of the electors before amending the constitution?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Sir Philip Cunliffe-Lister): As I informed the House on the 2nd March, the decision is to be carried into effect by Letters Patent, which will be brought into force as soon as they are ready.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is this action not calculated to deny the right of poor children to enter the professions; will it have any effect in that direction?

Sir P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER: No, I am quite satisfied that this decision is in the right and best interests of all the children of Malta.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALVIS BAY (PROPOSED RAILWAY).

Mr. McENTEE: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether the proposed Walvis Bay railway is to be built at the expense of this country, or will the money be provided by the Bechuanaland Protectorate and Southern and Northern Rhodesia?

Mr. THOMAS: A possible route for such a railway was recently surveyed. Proposals for constructing the line have not yet been formulated.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. MANDER: 45.
asked the Prime Minister if he is now able to state what arrangements he proposes in order to give private Members time when available?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): I would refer my hon.

Friend to the reply given to him on the 9th March by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. MANDER: Will my right hon. Friend later on consider giving time to those Private Members' Bills that have recently got a Second Reading and have been sent to a Committee, but have not gone further?

Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: If the House generally respects the desire of the Government to provide all necessary time for Government business, and other time remains that is not required for Government business, will the Prime Minister consider sympathetically the giving of opportunities for proceeding with private business?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes, I am always willing to discuss these questions sympathetically, but I think the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has been proved by subsequent events to be right, namely, that a few odds and ends of time are of no use for controversial Bills, and that so far as non-controversial Bills are concerned they can be concluded without this special provision.

Mr. MANDER: We want time later on then.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 319; Noes, 27.

Division No. 134.]
AYES.
[3.36 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Boulton, W. W.
Cautley, Sir Henry S.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)


Alexander, Sir William
Boyce, H. Leslie
Chalmers, John Rutherford


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Chamberlain. Rt.Hon.SirJ.A.(Birm., W)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Bracken, Brendan
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)


Atholl, Duchess of
Broadbent, Colonel John
Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Clarke, Frank


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Buchan, John
Clarry, Reginald George


Balniel, Lord
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Clayton, Dr. George C.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Burnett, John George
Collins, Sir Godfrey


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Butt, Sir Alfred
Conant, R. J. E.


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Cadogan, Hon. Edward
Cook, Thomas A.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Cooper, A. Duff


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.


Bernays, Robert
Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Cowan, D. M.


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Carver, Major William H.
Craven-Ellis, William


Blindell, James
Castle Stewart, Earl
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.


Crooke, J. Smedley
Kimball, Lawrence
Potter, John


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Kirkpatrick, William M.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Cross, R. H.
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Crossley, A. C.
Knebworth, Viscount
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knight, Holford
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Davison, Sir William Henry
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Ramsden, E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Law, Sir Alfred
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Dickie, John P.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Remer, John R.


Donner, P. W.
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Drewe, Cedric
Lees-Jones, John
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Lewis, Oswald
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Duggan, Hubert John
Liddall, Walter S.
Robinson, John Roland


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Eden, Robert Anthony
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Rosbotham, S. T.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Elmley, Viscount
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Rothschild, James A. de


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd.Gr'n)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Runge, Norah Cecil


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield,B'tside)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mabane, William
Salmon, Major Isidore


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
MacAndrew, Maj. C. G. (Partick)
Salt, Edward W.


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Fox, Sir Gifford
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Savery, Samuel Servington


Fuller, Captain A. G.
McKeag, William
Scone, Lord


Ganzoni, Sir John
McKie, John Hamilton
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D.(Corn'll N.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Shepperson, Sir Ernest W.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Glossop, C. W. H.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Magnay, Thomas
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Glyn, Major Ralph G. C.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Goff, Sir Park
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Goldie, Noel B.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Margesson, Cant. Henry David R.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)


Gower, Sir Robert
Marjoribanks, Edward
Soper, Richard


Granville, Edgar
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Graves, Marjorie
Martin, Thomas B.
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro',W.)
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Grimston, R. V.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Gunston, Captain D. W.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Milne, Charles
Stewart, William J.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Milne, John Sydney Wardlaw-
Stones, James


Hales, Harold K.
Mitchell, Harold P.(Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Storey, Samuel


Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Hamilton, Sir R.W.(Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Molson. A. Hugh Elsdale
Strauss, Edward A.


Hammersley, Samuel S.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Summersby, Charles H.


Hanley, Dennis A.
Morgan, Robert H.
Taylor, Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n,S.)


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Templeton, William P.


Harbord, Arthur
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Hartland, George A.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)
Thompson, Luke


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Moss, Captain H. J.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Nathan, Major H. L.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)


Holdsworth, Herbert
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Hornby, Frank
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Normand, Wilfrid Guild
Wayland, Sir William A.


Howard, Tom Forrest
North, Captain Edward T.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nunn, William
Weymouth, Viscount


Hudson,Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney. N.)
O'Connor, Terence James
White, Henry Graham


Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Palmer, Francis Noel
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Patrick, Colin M.
Wills, Wilfrid D.


James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Peake, Captain Osbert
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Pearson, William G.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Peat, Charles U.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Penny, Sir George
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley


Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)



Ker, J. Campbell
Pickering, Ernest H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kerr, Hamilton W
Pike, Cecil F.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Mr. Walter Rea.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Kirkwood, David
Price, Gabriel


Batey, Joseph
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Jenkins, Sir William.
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Jones, J. J, (West Ham, Silvertown)
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. Groves and Mr. Cordon




Macdonald.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, in view of these figures, it would be sufficient to ask those who object to this Motion to stand up, and so save the time of the House?

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE).

SCOTTISH STANDING COMMITTEE.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added the following Member to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills: Commander Cochrane.

Report to lie upon the Table.

BILLS REPORTED.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (MARGATE AND YEOVIL) BILL.

Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table.

Bill to be read the Third time To-morrow.

YORK WATERWORKS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

LOTTERIES.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object.
I hope that the House will allow the Bill to be printed so that hon. Members may see its provisions in black and white. When I introduced a similar Bill last year, I confined its scope to the provision of funds for hospitals on the same lines as the Irish Free State lottery. In view,
however, of representations that were made to me, I have drawn the present Bill on somewhat wider and simpler lines, though British hospitals will still be within its scope and can take advantage of it should they desire to do so. It is interesting to note that of the 180 Members who voted against the Bill which I introduced last year, 130 have since lost their seats. I would not say that they lost their seats solely because they voted against the Bill, but I do say that they represent a type of mind which is not acceptable to the majority of their fellow citizens.
This is a very short Bill. Clause 1 provides that, nothwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act of Parliament or any rule of law, it shall be lawful for the governing body or trustees of any charity or any trustees or other body of persons appointed solely or mainly for the purpose of raising money for philanthropic, scientific or artistic purposes, or for the initiation and assistance in carrying out any public improvement or other public objects, to hold, with the approval of the Secretary of State and subject to the provisions contained in this Bill, a lottery in order to raise money for such charity, purpose or object. Clause 2 provides that no lottery shall be held under this Bill except in pursuance of a scheme sanctioned by the Secretary of State, and for the charity or object named in such scheme and subject to the terms and conditions of the scheme. Clause 3 sets up certain conditions and regulations but does not preclude the Secretary of State from making others if he thinks fit. The Bill will not apply to Northern Ireland. Such are, shortly, the provisions of the Bill as drafted, but if it is thought that the scope of the Bill is too wide, or that it should be confined to hospitals, as the last Bill was, or that the number of lotteries in any one year should be fixed, that can easily be arranged in the Committee stage.
As the House is aware, there is nothing inherently vicious or demoralising in the holding of a lottery. Such lotteries were held in this country over a period of many years. Queen Elizabeth was the first patron of State lotteries—of a great lottery which was held in this country for the repair of the havens of the realm and other public works. Members of the House often see the statue, close by here, of George Washington. He was a strong supporter of lotteries under public control, and in 1769 he helped to pass a law against ate holding of a lottery without special authority, as my Bill now proposes to do. The penal legislation under which the Home Office now acts was passed so long ago as 1834—nearly 100 years ago. It is under that law that they now search travellers arriving at Holyhead, open private letters, even the letters from a solicitor to his client, as was pointed out in the House a few days ago by an hon. Member. That legislation was not passed with any idea of stopping a vicious or immoral practice, but in order to protect the State lotteries from unfair competition by private lotteries and lotteries organised abroad.
May I remind the House that at the present time we have the totalisator as a national institution, formally approved by Parliament? We have the telegraph and telephone services deriving a large part of their income from transmitting betting news. There is scarcely a church or chapel bazaar in the country which does not have its little raffle. Newspapers of all parties are continually promoting thinly disguised lotteries, and as Socialist Members opposite are aware, the "Daily Herald" has recently held a lottery on behalf of hospitals, offering to pay £20,000 for 6d. I have referred to the "Daily Herald" as representing Socialist opinion, but I would remind my Conservative friends that last year, at the annual meeting of the Women's Organisation of the National Union of Conservative Associations in this country, a resolution was passed unanimously—without any opposition—condemning the present law respecting lotteries and sweepstakes, and urging that lotteries should be legalised under proper control, exactly as my Bill proposes.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: They are women. Marriage is a lottery.

Sir W. DAVISON: Hon. Members should also bear in mind that the British Museum was started by means of a lottery; and that old Westminster Bridge was erected out of the proceeds of a lottery. New bridges are still needed. As we know, there is urgent need for a new bridge at Charing Cross. Why should it not be possible now to erect a bridge across the river by means of a lottery? If a bridge were erected at Charing Cross it would save Waterloo Bridge as a national monument, and prevent its demolition, which we should all be glad for. The new Cunarder was started with Government approval and assistance, and there is no reason why, under proper conditions, we should not have funds provided by means of a lottery to enable this great ship to be proceeded with. In Germany, Spain, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Poland, Italy and elsewhere State lotteries are regularly held. In Madrid a great university building is being put up by means of a lottery. By the Irish sweepstake just concluded the Irish hospitals are the recipients of £841,000. From previous lotteries they have received more than £2,000,000. In all, they have received practically £3,000,000. How much sickness and suffering in this country might have been saved had that money been available to us? A recent visitor to Dublin saw the sweepstake revolving drum which brought £841,000 for the Irish hospitals. When he arrived back at Euston he saw another drum—a hospital student beating a drum in the streets, with a procession behind him collecting money for a great London hospital. Which of the two methods is the more dignified? A correspondent wrote to me yesterday stating:
We are letting our brothers and sisters suffer through a lot of old Mother Hub-bards and pedants out of touch with the realities of every day life.
A hospital appeal recently stated that a thousand surgical cases were waiting for beds owing to a lack of funds. The funds could be provided by a lottery under this Bill. Hon. Members should bear in mind that of the £3,000,000 raised for hospitals in Ireland more than £2,000,000 came from this country. Let me say at once that no one must imagine that if lotteries were established in this country they would
maintain hospitals entirely. Of course they would not; but at any rate they would provide funds for urgently-needed equipment and urgently-needed beds. More than 7,000,000 tickets were sold in the Irish Sweepstake, and it is estimated that 5,000,000 tickets were purchased by citizens of Great Britain. At any rate, British citizens won 800 of the first 1,120 prizes, about 71 per cent. I ask the House why these millions of British citizens should be made into criminals by an absurd and out-of-date law, and why the time of the police should be occupied in chasing people who sell Irish sweepstake tickets rather than looking after the bag snatchers and those who smash shop windows? Why should our magistrates be reduced to every kind of pretext in order not to convict the people brought before them in connection with this lottery? The "Times" of last Tuesday contained 10 columns of the names of 1,100 criminals who had won prizes in the Irish sweepstake, and there were similar lists in other papers. In conclusion, may I quote a sentence from an article last week in the "Morning Post," of whose Lobby correspondent we all took leave last night with much regret. The "Morning Post" is not a paper which is likely to recommend anything demoralising or vicious. The sentence is:
The State finds itself unable to check what it condemns. To conclude that the public is depraved is to bring an indictment against a nation, which is absurd. The only other conclusion is that the law, which is so much in conflict with public opinion, is in need of amendment.
It is with the object of altering the present absurd law that I ask leave to bring in my Bill.

Mr. HOPKIN MORRIS: I ask the House to reject this Motion, and I hope that hon. Members will not be unduly influenced by the illustration given by my hon. Friend of the 130 Members of the last House who lost their seats. He has talked of the anomalous state of the betting law. I fully agree with what he has said about that law; I agree that a far-reaching inquiry is necessary into the operation of these laws and their codification. It may be that the laws are in urgent necessity of modification and alteration, and there is a wide field for inquiry; but this Motion, if passed by the House, instead of providing for an inquiry, would prejudge that inquiry.
During the War a proposal was put forward to set up lotteries, and, indeed, a Bill was introduced into the other House and into this House to legalise lotteries in order to provide money for the Red Cross Society. There could have been no more laudable object. That Bill was preceded by an inquiry. The majority of Members who conducted that inquiry started by being in favour of a lottery for that specific purpose, but by the time they had concluded their investigations they had come unanimously to the conclusion that they ought not to recommend the setting up of a lottery. They heard evidence from different classes of the community. They took evidence from my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Dominions, who told them that when he went to Derby to consult his constituents they asked him about the best investments they could make, and he was alarmed to think that in the future they would be asking him about the best lottery in which to take tickets. In spite of the fact that the Committee's recommendation was against the adoption of the lottery system, Lord Lansdowne introduced a Bill in the House of Lords, but he said a very remarkable thing in justification for the introduction of the Bill. He said that he supported the Bill because War conditions were abnormal, but that if they were living in peace time, he should oppose it. That was his view. If there was a need for inquiry in those abnormal times, surely there is a need for inquiry now. I do not this afternoon raise the moral issue—not that I brush it aside by any means—but I am basing my case now upon the rights and the obligations of the State. The first obligation of the State in all circumstances is to preserve itself. There are numerous Acts of Parliament dealing with this subject. The Act of 1541, which put a stop to this practice, mentioned in its preamble that the young men in the country, instead of making themselves proficient in archery —the mode of defence of the realm at that time—were spending their time in betting and gambling. The preamble of the Act of 1698 stated that they had to put a stop to lotteries because, in the language of the preamble, it was detrimental to the "good trade, welfare and peace of His Majesty's Kingdom." That was the experience at that time. It was
purely a practical reason which prompted the State to put an end to the practice. Act after Act was passed between 1541 and 1823 to stop private lotteries, but the Acts could not be effectively enforced because the State lottery was still lawful. In 1823, however, an Act was passed as a result of a Select Committee which reported—it is a very important finding—that
The foundation of the lottery system is so radically vicious that your Committee feel convinced that under no system of regulations which can be devised will it be possible for Parliament to adopt it as an efficient source of revenue, and at the same time divest it of all the evils of which it has hitherto proved so baneful a source.
That was the view of the Select Committee. I come to the safeguards. What safeguards are you going to put up? The one exception upon the Statute Book today is the Act of 1846 providing for lotteries to be set up for the Art Union, but even there these lotteries cannot be set up without first of all obtaining a Royal Charter. These are far greater safeguards than are proposed in my hon. Friend's proposed Bill. Having obtained the Royal Charter they have still further regulations authorised by the Privy Council for safeguards, as far as safeguards can go. Notwithstanding that, you cannot restrict the area; you cannot enforce the law with regard to other lotteries once you have permitted it in one field. That has been the experience. It was the experience in 1823, when they had to abolish State lotteries because they could not enforce the law. [An HON. MEMBER: "It is very difficult now!"] It is very difficult in the case of the Irish Sweepstake. What will the difficulty be when you have lotteries in this country? That difficulty is illustrated by my hon. Friend's Motion. Last year he asked leave to introduce a Measure merely setting up lotteries for hospitals. This afternoon, as a result of representations, he has asked to be allowed to widen the scope of the Bill. That is a situation where you will never be able to enforce the law. Parliament, I have no doubt, took action in 1823 largely because sweepstakes by then had been set up even for the sale of land. Can anything be conceived that can go further to undermine the social structure than legal sweepstakes?
Now it is said, "Look at the object!" It is to support charitable institutions and hospitals. I agree at once, and every Member here will agree, that the object is a worthy one, but are you going to support this worthy object by questionable means? I am not going to give my own opinion in support of that. I will take the opinion of the hospitals themselves. In London and the provinces last year the sum raised for voluntary hospitals by bequests, subscriptions, savings associations and paying patients was between £13,000,000 and £14,000,000. That was last year—a year of acute depression in the country. Of that sum, between 50 and 60 per cent. came from voluntary contributions. What is the amount of sweepstakes which would be required to assure an income equivalent to that amount?

Sir W. DAVISON: That is not suggested.

Mr. MORRIS: Take the figures of a very competent hospital accountant. He says it will require three sweepstakes a year each yielding £10,000,000—in all £30,000,000 a year. If you take the figures of the Irish Sweepstake and assume—it is a great assumption—that there would be treble the number of subscribers to an English sweepstake that there are now to the Irish Sweepstake, it is computed that that would yield £15,000,000, leaving a deficiency of £15,000,000 in the sum necessary to be raised. I am not giving my own figures, but the figures of the hospitals themselves. I go further. I have here the testimony of the Chairman of the Royal City of Dublin Hospital itself. He said:
that annual subscribers are withdrawing their gifts, on the ground that they are no longer needed.
That paying patients—generally working class men and women—are objecting to pay anything for their treatment and 'keep,' and that considerable loss has ensued.
That business firms whose employés used to pay a penny or twopence a week to the hospital, now refuse to pay anything. Loss from this source is 50 per cent. of income.
That people are not leaving money by wills and bequests.
That reduction has already taken place, and there is no comparison between the position of the hospitals in this country and those in Ireland. The Irish Sweepstake is a success from the Irish point of view, because Ireland is a small country, and they are drawing English
money, but if the hospitals of this country rely upon the same position, the amount of Irish money which they will draw will be negligible. That is why the house-governor of Charing Cross Hospital, Mr. Philip Inman, stated last May:
Speaking for myself and this hospital, we will have neither part nor lot in any such schemes. And our reasons are not simply moral ones, though they weigh very considerably. Looking from simply a business standpoint, we believe that the gains would be outweighed by the losses.
What does that great expert Sir Arthur Stanley say? This is the testimony of hospitals, the very institutions it is intended to support. This is a case for not prejudicing the issue, for not coming down on one side or the other. It is clearly a case where there should be an inquiry first. This is a great new departure in

policy. It is true that man very often over-rates two things—his own capabilities and his own good luck. As my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines said last year in a very powerful speech, you cannot put these charitable institutions, depending as they do upon the moral good will of men, upon a basis of chance, and you certainly dare not do so without a proper inquiry first. On those grounds, I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object.

The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 123.

Division No. 135.]
AYES.
[4.10 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Mills, Sir Frederick (Leyton, E.)


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Alexander, Sir William
Glossop, C. W. H.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Morgan, Robert H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Goff, Sir Park
Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)


Atkinson, Cyril
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moss, Captain H. J.


Baldwin-Webb, Colonel J.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Munro, Patrick


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Grimston, R. V.
Nall-Cain, Arthur Ronald N.


Balfour, Capt. Harold (I. of Thanet)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Balniel, Lord
Hales, Harold K.
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Barton, Capt. Basil Kelsey
Hanley, Dennis A.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
North, Captain Edward T.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harbord, Arthur
Nunn, William


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th,C.)
Hartland, George A.
O'Connor, Terence James


Bevan, Stuart James (Holborn)
Harvey, George (Lambeth,Kenningt'n)
Patrick, Colin M.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Harvey, Major S. E (Devon, Tomes)
Peake, Captain Osbert


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Haslam, Henry (Lindsay, H'ncastle)
Penny, Sir George


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Sir Archibald
Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsford)
Petherick, M.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)-


Broadbent, Colonel John
Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romford)
Pike, Cecil F.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Potter, John


Burnett, John George
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Raikes, Henry V. A. M.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)


Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Kimball, Lawrence
Remer, John R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Kirkwood, David
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.


Chalmors, John Rutherford
Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Renwick, Major Gustav A.


Choriton, Alan Ernest Leofric
Knebworth, Viscount
Robinson, John Roland


Christie, James Archibald
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rodd. Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Latham, Sir Herbert Paul
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Clarke, Frank
Leech, Dr. J. W.
Runge, Norah Cecil


Clarry, Reginald George
Lees-Jones, John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Clayton, Dr. George C.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Salmon, Major Isidore


Cooper, A. Duff
Liddall, Walter S.
Salt, Edward W.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Craven-Ellis, William
Locker-Lampion, Rt. Hn. G. (Wd.G'n)
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D.


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Logan, David Gilbert
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lumley, Captain Lawrence R.
Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L.


Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F.
Lyons. Abraham Montagu
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Donner, P. W.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Doran, Edward
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Stourton, Hon. John J.


Drewe, Cedric
McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Strauss, Edward A.


Duckworth, George A. V.
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Summersby, Charles H.


Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Duggan, Hubert John
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Taylor,Vice-Admiral E.A.(P'dd'gt'n.S.)


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Martin, Thomas B.
Templeton, William P.


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Maxton, James
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Everard, W. Lindsay
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tinker, John Joseph


Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswintord)
Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wayland, Sir William A.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Turton, Robert Hugh
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.



Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)
Weymouth, Viscount
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ward, Sarah Adelaide (Cannock)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall


Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
and Sir William Davison.


NOES.


Allen, Lt.-Col J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Granville, Edgar
Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Milne, Charles


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Groves, Thomas E.
Morris, Rhys Hopkin (Cardigan)


Atholl, Duchess of
Guinness, Thomas L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Nathan, Major H. L.


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Batey, Joseph
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)
Parkinson, John Allen


Bernays, Robert
Holdsworth, Herbert
Peat, Charles U.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Hopkinson, Austin
Pickering, Ernest H.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Howard, Tom Forrest
Price, Gabriel


Blindell, James
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
James, Wing.-Com. A. W. H.
Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)


Brown.Brig.-Gen.H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Jenkins, Sir William
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)


Buchan, John
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Roberts, Aled (Wrexham)


Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Rosbotham, S. T.


Carver, Major William H.
Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Rothschild, James A. de


Chamberlain,Rt.Hon.Sir J.A.(Birm., W)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)
Ker, J. Campbell
Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Knight, Holford
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Collins, Sir Godfrey
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Scone, Lord


Conant, R. J. E.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Cowan, D. M.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Daggar, George
Lawson, John James
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(C'thness)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Leonard, William
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Soper, Richard


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dickie, John P.
Lunn, William
Stewart, William J.


Edwards, Charles
Mabane, William
Stones, James


Elmley, Viscount
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Storey, Samuel


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McEntee, Valentine L.
Wallace, John (Dunfermilne)


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McKeag, William
Wallhead, Richard C.


Essenhigh, Reginald Clare
McKie, John Hamilton
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)
Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (Corn'll N.)
Watts-Morgan, Lieut.-Col. David


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
White, Henry Graham


Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Magnay, Thomas
Williams, Dr. John H. (Llanelly)


foot, Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Marjoribanks, Edward
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Mr. R. J, Russell and Mr. Luke




Thompson.


Question, "That the Bill he now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir William Davison, Sir Henry Cautley, Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Frederick Hall, Major-General Sir Alfred Knox, Mr. Strauss, Captain Peter Macdonald, Rear-Admiral Campbell, and Sir Paul Latham.

LOTTERIES BILL,

"to authorise the raising of money by means of lotteries for charitable, scientific, and artistic purposes, or any public improvement or other public object," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday, 12th April, and to be printed. [Bill 51.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the law with respect to gas undertakings." [Gas Undertakings Bill [Lords].]

And also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to provide for carrying into effect agreements between Blackpool Pleasure Beach, Limited, and the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the borough of Blackpool; to make further provision in regard to the erection of buildings; and for other purposes." [Blackpool Improvement Bill [Lords].]

BLACKPOOL IMPROVEMENT BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

DISARMAMENT—CHINA AND JAPAN.

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to make a few observations on this Measure in order to get some information from the Foreign Secretary on the present position in Manchuria and Shanghai. The House is aware of the difficult situation which confronted the meeting of the Disarmament Conference when it met some months ago, and found itself faced with the fact that two of its members were at war with one another. The difficulties in connection with the Far Eastern question are very great, but it seems to my friends and myself that, after all the months which have passed during which very little progress has been made to wards a settlement of this question, it is necessary that our own country and the Dominions should know and understand exactly what policy the Government are pursuing. I should like the Foreign Secretary, when he comes to speak, to give the House, as far as he is able, the view of the Government in regard to the Disarmament Conference.
During the discussion of the Army and Service Estimates some of us were rather disquieted by the statement which appeared to be paramount in the discussion, that in another year it would possibly be advisable, in the view of the advisers of the Government, to increase expenditure, and thereby increase the volume of armaments throughout the world. On this side of the House we think—and most people who have studied the question will agree with us—if that is so, it is rather a disastrous ending, or will be a disastrous ending, to the very high hopes which were entertained of progressive disarmament in the world, hopes which were fostered at a famous meeting at which His Majesty spoke a couple of years ago. I disagree with a good many hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House on
the question of armaments, and I think that there will be no real peace in the world until the nations give up relying on armaments. On the other hand, if I agreed with armaments, I should not think that it was either wise or desirable that an army should be ill-equipped or not perhaps properly manned and so on.
When the Foreign Secretary comes to reply, he might tell the House and tell the world who it is, in his judgment, that the various nations are arming against. During the late War and since a large number of people imagined that as a result of that War we should at least make some progress against the idea of war. We have now, according to the speeches which were made during the Debate on the Service Estimates, the extraordinary spectacle of Members of this House, and I expect of members in the Parliaments of other countries, making speeches which seem to imply that the allies of yesterday, the people who pledged themselves to follow the example of Germany in disarmament, are now arming against each other. I think the question which ought to be debated at the Disarmament Conference quite publicly and openly is against whom do we want these armaments? For what purpose do we want them? Why does France need super-submarines, and why do we need specially fast aeroplanes? Who are these weapons to be used against? On that question, I should like the Foreign Secretary to give us his views.
4.30 p.m.
Who is it that France, Italy, and ourselves are arming against? It cannot be Germany now. If we are arming against any particular nation what are the questions that are going to bring about war between those nations? At the other end of the corridor in the Royal Gallery there is a great picture of Waterloo, and you see the meeting of the Prussian Blucher with the British Wellington. That was in 1815. We were united then with Germany in fighting the French, and one hundred years later, and on practically the same spot, the French and the British united against the Germans. That may be in the natural order of things something to make a good joke about, but it seems to me absurd and ridiculous that we should be going along the same road now. Therefore, in asking the
Foreign Secretary to deal with that subject I would also like to ask him to deal with another question which, although it was mentioned not long ago and a little discussion took place upon it, we did not get very far with. What is the attitude of the Government, have they any policy, or will they propose anything at the Disarmament Conference in support of the idea of an internationalisation of aviation, that is to say, the abolition of national aviation and the substitution for it of international aviation? I ask that question for a specific reason. In the old days, when the sea was said to be our bulwark, Great Britain was obliged to get a chain of coaling stations and ports all round the world into which at all times her ships could enter and be coaled, victualled, and so on. To-day the air routes of the world are of equal importance, and, before each country launches out into a campaign to secure for itself monopolies in regard to landing places, surely it -would be well for the nations to come together and discuss whether this new scientific business of flying should not be internationalised, and whether the aerodromes and landing places should not come under international control. Unless that is done, we may find ourselves engaged in war defending some out-of-the-way part of the world merely because it is on the direct route to Australia, India, and so on. There have been questions and answers on the subject in this House, both in the last Parliament and in this. There are difficulties in connection with the route to India—difficulties on which, I understand, negotiations are taking place, and which it is hoped to overcome. It seems to me, and to many other people, that it would be much simpler that these routes should be mapped out and the landing places arranged, and that they should be free and open to the aircraft of the whole world.
That is all that I wish to say at the moment on the broad questions connected with the Disarmament Conference, but, when we come to the Sino-Japanese dispute, I think the House ought to be reminded of the fact that since September last there has been war between Japan and China. This fact was laid down on the 2nd February by the
Dominions Secretary, who, representing the British Government at a Council of the League, said:
His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom feels it is impossible that the present position in the Far East should be allowed to continue, Every day brings news of some fresh incident of the utmost gravity. Fighting over a wide area is practically continuous. Shanghai is the scene of a series of conflicts… War in everything but name is in progress. To such a state of things the Members of the League of Nations cannot be indifferent.
He continued—and this is the point that I wish to emphasize in all that I am saying—
If it is allowed to go on, the Covenant, the Pact of Paris, and the Nine Power Treaty must inevitably lose the confidence of the world.
He went on to say:
It is not without significance to members of the League that the United States Government take entirely the same view of the situation.
If I may be permitted to say so it is something to be very thankful for that the Government of the United States has taken the stand that it has on this subject in connection with the League of Nations. That was in February last but to-day—and I press this point on the right hon. Gentleman—Japan is in military occupation of the three Eastern provinces of China. I am told that the area of territory amounts to 200,000 square miles. Japan has established there a Government of sorts, which owes no allegiance to the Chinese Central Government at Nanking. There can be no question whatsoever that that Government which has been established in Manchuria could not last for 24 hours if it were not for the military support of Japan. That fact, I think, is indisputable.
The further fact to which I would draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention is that this has been done and continued in spite of the protests of China, in spite of the protests of the League of Nations, and, most terrible of all, in spite of the fact that both of these Governments are Members of the League, and both sit as Members of the Council of the League. They are both pledged to certain action in regard to disputes, and yet the Council has first to meet, and then the Assembly has to meet, to discuss what is in effect war brought about by the refusal of one party to the dispute to submit to the terms for the settlement of disputes
which she herself has signed. Let us never forget that during the Great War this House rang with denunciations of those who refused to honour a scrap of paper. Japan, whatever may be said, has refused to honour what the League of Nations tells her is her duty, and to honour what the United States Government has also called upon her to honour. On the other hand, China from the very first has put her case wholly in the hands of the League. It may be said that there is a truce at Shanghai. I hope very much that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to-night to give us a full explanation of the position at Shanghai—where the Japanese troops are, how many are still there, and how events are moving towards the total evacuation of the Japanese Army. Although it was very late in the day when the League of Nations was able to get something done, I willingly and sincerely congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on whatever hand he took in helping to bring about that result, but I repeat that Manchuria is still held by the Japanese.
I want the right hon. Gentleman to tell us to-night what is the position of the British Government in regard to the new Government that has been installed in Manchuria. Before I proceed further on that subject, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any correspondence has passed, I do not mean with the League of Nations or through the League of Nations, but has the British Government made any communications direct to the Japanese Government or to the Chinese Government on this question of the new Manchurian Government; and, if so, will he lay on the Table of the House whatever dispatches there may be? The American Government have done so. The American diplomacy in this matter has been very open indeed. I think they have published almost all their documents on the subject. In any case it seems to me that, if our Government has said anything on the subject of the new Government of Manchuria, this House and the country are entitled to know what they have said. This is the position so far as the League of Nations is concerned, and, I think, so far as the American Government is concerned. The League has put it on record, and I think the right hon. Gentleman was present and had something to do with putting it on record, that:
It is incumbent upon members of the League (this includes Japan and China) not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League or to the Pact of Paris.
Nobody can say that what has happened in Manchuria is in conformity with either of those documents, and, therefore, I want to ask categorically of the Foreign Secretary: Does the British Government accept that statement; and, if so, how is it possible that any question can arise as to the recognition of the Government set up by Japan in Manchuria? I ask that question because the right hon. Gentleman said the other day that it was premature to give a decision. I cannot for the life of me see how it can be premature if the right hon. Gentleman agrees with the sentence that I have just read out in the statement by the League on the subject of recognising
any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League or to the Pact of Paris.
I want also to point out that Mr. Stimson, writing to Senator Borah on the 28th February, said practically the same thing, and he went on to expand that on another occasion, on which he wrote as follows:
If a similar decision should be reached and a similar position be taken by other Governments of the world, a caveat would be placed upon such action "—
that is, action by force—
which we believe would effectively bar the legality hereafter of any title to right sought by pressure or treaty violation, and which, as has been shown by history, will eventually lead to the restoration to China of the rights and titles of which she may have been deprived.
I should like to know if the right hon. Gentleman agrees with that statement of Mr. Stimson and with the statement made by the League of Nations Council. If he does, I cannot see how there can be any question of recognising the Government set up by the Japanese in Manchuria, and it is very important that we should know the right hon. Gentleman's mind on that subject.
My reason for putting this question so categorically to him is that there is a general feeling—I put a question to him on this subject on a previous occasion, but I am going to repeat it now—an opinion is being expressed abroad—I do not mean outside our own country, but outside this House—that the right hon.
Gentleman and the British Government are not averse, I will not put it any higher than that, to what is happening in Manchuria; that we are a little halfhearted in the matter, and that what I cannot help feeling are the long delays which are taking place in getting the League of Nations Commission to Manchuria are for the purpose of giving Japan time to consolidate her position in that country. The Commission was appointed months ago. It has visited Tokio on its way to Manchuria, and has been entertained there, and now I think it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of Shanghai, but has not yet reached Manchuria. I want the right hon. Gentleman to believe that I do not think that he himself would give any countenance to the idea that a Government set up in the manner in which the Government in question has been set up should be recognised by this country or by any other of the Treaty Powers. But the Japanese statesmen are not shy or backward in saying what is ill their mind. Mr. Sato, speaking at a public meeting of the Council of the League on 19th February, said:
Our invested capital in Manchuria is too considerable to make it possible for us to accept any system of Government in that country. We cannot acquiesce in an arbitrary system of Government, one that jeopardises this capital, which represents large sums of money. That is why we welcome hopefully the new autonomous regime.
which he knows perfectly well would not last 24 hours but for the Japanese soldiers. He goes on:
When China has a properly organised and co-ordinated central government, Manchuria will perhaps enter into negotiations with this Government with a view to settling the status of Manchuria.
What right has the Japanese Government of its own sweet will to say it will negotiate to settle the status of Manchuria? Manchuria is part of the Chinese Dominions, and neither Japan nor any one else has a right to settle that status It is already settled. He went on:
But for that we must wait and see.
The theory that is continually inferred from statements like this, that there is no settled Government in China, is to my mind, and I think to the mind of any reasonable person, beside the point. The Government at Nanking is recognised by all the States of the world. I
think there is none which has refused recognition or acceptance of her representatives, or that does not send representatives. That Government is recognised by the League of Nations, and it is on the Assembly and the Council of the League. I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone can for a moment imagine that there can be any question but that there is a settled Government of China recognised by all the States of the world. I have often outside the House—I have very seldom had an opportunity of speaking on foreign affairs inside—made criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). But I always remember that in the dark days of 1926, when trouble arose between ourselves and China, and my friends here, led by the present Prime Minister, were taking certain action, and the same sort of statements were being made about the lack of central control in China, the right hon. Gentleman put it on record that the British Government adopts a policy of liberal and friendly co-operation with new China, and in a memorandum he said the principles on which he would act were that we should abandon the idea that the economic and political development of China can only be secured under foreign tutelage, and that it should be the policy of the Powers to endeavour to maintain harmonious relations with China without waiting for or insisting on the prior establishment of a strong central Government. I think that is the proper attitude to a country that is struggling, in the midst of civil disobedience, to maintain its position.
China is not a small nation. We are told it has a population of 400,000,000, and it may very well be that, with the Powers intriguing one against the other, with the bribery and corruption which it is well known the Powers have used against each other in their dealings with the various chiefs in China, there are disorders—[Interruption]. There is nothing to laugh at in that. This country has had troubles with a certain little country, and may have more, and we are having considerable trouble in India, but those who laugh about that have to remember that even now when it is supposed that the Government is not very strong at the centre, it is still true that the trade done with
China, and done under very satisfactory conditions, has increased during the last year. The people who supply China with goods from this country have something to be thankful for to the Chinese Government. It is said that Japan has very great interests in Manchuria. I understand her total, capital investments, which are very largely in the South Manchurian railway, mines and other undertakings, amount to some £200,000,000 and that she has a population in Manchuria of somewhere about 200,000 people. People talk nowadays as if Manchuria was occupied by Japanese. As a matter of fact, I understand the Japanese do not want to live in Manchuria. They are like the Englishman, who does not want to live in the hot parts of Africa. The climate and conditions in Manchuria have not invited the Japanese to colonise there, although it is so near their own home and there is freedom for them to go there. There are only 203,000 of them, while there are 28,000,000 Chinese there. You only have to reckon the small amount per head of the value of the property spread over the whole of this and you will very soon see who has the chief stake in the country. But I maintain that no nation has a right to say that, because it has chosen to invest money in a country, therefore, it has a right to control it.
I may he told that I ought to wait for the Lytton Commission before raising this question of the continued occupation of Manchuria by Japan. I am not at all unmindful of the fact that in certain areas, railway areas, in Manchuria there are treaty rights that Japan possesses, but, even so, the League, when appointing the Lytton Commission, laid it down very clearly, on 10th December, that:
The appointment and deliberations of the Committee shall not prejudice in any way the undertaking given by the Japanese Government in the resolution of 30th September as regards, withdrawal of Japanese troops within the railway zone.
That resolution need never have been passed, because Japan has taken not the slightest notice of it, her troops are just where she wants them to be and she has not withdrawn them, and the appointment of the Lytton Commission has nothing whatever to do with my case in regard to the fact that the Japanese troops have not been withdrawn. To show that the Japanese Government has
no intention of withdrawing them you have only to read the statement of Mr. Sato, the Japanese representative in Geneva, that:
In 10 years we shall establish order and security in Manchuria and there will have been a great expansion of prosperity.
In these circumstances, I want to ask the Foreign Secretary what the League proposes to do to get the Japanese out of Manchuria. There was a question put to him the other day as to what the Japanese authorities are doing, and I understood his answer to be that he had no information. I should like to ask him about the communications of the Chinese delegates to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations, dated 9th and 10th March, in which it is stated by the Chinese Government that, from information received from the Inspector-General of Customs, the Japanese Consul at Antung, Manchuria, has asked Mr. R. M. Talbot, the Commissioner of Customs, to be prepared to hand over his functions and that Japanese advisers would be appointed to assist in taking over. Will the right hon. Gentleman communicate to the House any information he may have on this matter and, in view of the terms of the resolution of the Assembly of the League, and in view of the fact that British and other foreign loans are secured on the Customs revenue, will he draw the attention of the Japanese Government to the fact that such action as is proposed is injurious to British interests and, what I think is of more importance, contrary to Article 10 of the Covenant and to Article 1, paragraph 1, of the Washington Nine Power Treaty? I have had these questions written out because it is important that the House should understand the attitude and the action of the Chinese Government.
There is another side to this question. There has been bloodshed and slaughter of innocent people and destruction of property. During the Debates on the Air Estimates, hon. Members made our blood curdle by telling us of the horrible things that would happen if London were bombed from aeroplanes, but people living in Manchuria and around Shanghai have had the terrible experience that we only know of by being told what may happen in the next war. No one denies that townships and villages have been wiped out. It is on record. No one at
present can say what the material money damage may be. It may be £100,000,000. In addition, according to the estimate of the municipal authorities of Shanghai, Chinese civilian casualties resulting from the recent fighting in three places amounts to several thousands—and a Chinese woman or baby is as valuable as an English woman or baby. I do not know that there is anything to laugh about. I should not like my baby to be slaughtered.

Sir AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I can only see what I see through my eyes. I was not looking at the right hon. Gentleman. I feel just a little sick and bad about it, because I have seen children who have suffered in this way. The fact that they are Chinese babies, children, women or men does not make the slightest difference; they are human beings. There have been killed (civilian deaths) 6,080, wounded 2,000, and missing, believed to have been killed, 10,040. There are 160,000 families in the vicinity of Chapei, Kiangwan, and Woosung rendered homeless. Someone has a great bill to pay, not of money, but of mental and moral reparation to these victims of a war about which there was no notice whatever. If hon. Members think that I am saying extreme things about it, I will read what Lord Cecil has said in an interview printed in a newspaper last week. He said:
A settlement which does not punish unjust aggressions, which does not reject a militarist policy, which does not assure to a loyal member of the League of Nations reparation for a wrong which it has sustained—such a settlement would be a disastrous blow to international moral. It is impossible to justify Japan for having bombarded and occupied Chinese territory before having attempted by all means to make good its claims by mediation and arbitration.
The League of Nations as well as America must decline to pardon and must repudiate formally and openly the action so wrongly undertaken by the Japanese military authorities.
I come to another point. When this question was first raised I described the action of the Japanese Government as an act of international piracy, and I was very severely criticised by some friends for having done so. I was then told—in
fact I read it in the newspapers—that if any action was taken on the lines laid down by the Covenant of the League, that is to say, that if any attempt was made to withdraw credits or to withdraw ambassadors, Japan would in effect go to war with all the world. I cannot believe that. I cannot believe that it would have been possible for that to have happened. But were it to have happened, speaking as one who thinks that it is better to leave nations which want to run amok to do so, I should still have brought our troops, our ships and our nationals away. I think that Japan, or any other nation in those circumstances, would soon have discovered that there are more ways of bringing people to reason than by trying to destroy them by bloodshed.
It may be said of me that I have put the case, or a brief, for China. I am neither pro-Chinese nor pro-Japanese in this matter. I am pro-peace, pro-trade, and pro-co-operation. I am only criticising Japan because I think that she has made a ghastly blunder. I recognise to the full—as much as anyone in this House—the position of Japan. She is very much in the same position as Germany was before the late War. Germany came into the field of commercial capitalism later in the day than ourselves and some other nations. She found herself in a position that she must expand her markets somewhere for her people and find somewhere where she could exchange the goods which, in an ever-increasing amount, she was able to produce. Japan is shut out of Canada, America, and Australia. Japan has learned from us, from the Western world, all there is to know, I think, in the way of production, and is now, like all other capitalist countries, chocked with goods. It is not so much, as I understand it, that Japan wants to send her people abroad. She may want to send her travellers and her agents, but I am told—I have no authority for this—that it is not so much her people as her goods, and that she wants markets and more raw material.
There is China. China has suffered much—no one will deny it—at the hands of the Western world. Almost the first education I received in foreign politics was to read about Canton of 100 years ago and also to read the Debates in this House upon the opium war, and the speech by Mr. Cobden, delivered in Feb-
ruary, 1857, about the action of our own Government at that day, which, if the speech were made to-day in reference to Japan, would apply equally well. Since that day China has again and again been invaded, but, in spite of what may be said at the moment about disorder and disunity, foreigners have not gone very far into the interior yet. There is a power of passive resistance about the Chinese, who are patient, who suffer and who work hard. Every one who has anything to do with them recognises them as straight-forward, honest and honourable people in the main. They have people who do wrong just as we have.
What is the world going to do with regard to the position in the Far East? What are you going to do with China? America wants the trade, we want the trade, Japan wants the trade, France, to a lesser degree wants the trade, and the Soviet Government wants the trade; and I expect that Germany will want a hand in it too. What are we going to do about it? Up to the present, as far as I am able to judge, the various Governments at times play one another off against each other. It may sound very Utopian to diplomatists and others, but I would suggest, as an ordinary person, that the statesmen of the world who are interested in China should try and look at China, not merely from the point of view of what the West can get out of her, but from the point of view of what the West may be able to give her in the arts of peace as well as in the arts of war.
When I hear things said about the Chinese Government, I cannot help remembering that it is estimated that there have been millions of people rendered homeless by floods. When I think of what might be done in China and of what might be done to balance trade and industry throughout the world, I ask myself: What is it that the Chinese people want from us and what is it that we want from them? Surely, if we really are in earnest in saying that we are friendly and only want to be friendly with them, there is enough civilisation, Christianity, and real humanity in the Governments of the Western world, including the United States, so that, instead of striving against each other in order to get the better of each other, either with Japan or with China, we may say to Japan, "Come into conference with us," not to share out China and not to get
spheres of influence in China, but to agree to take the Chinese at their word and to abolish all extra-territorial rights, and wisely treat that great country, which has a civilisation much older than any other in the world, as an equal.
We should say to her Government, "We really want to help you. We really want to bring you into the comity of commercial nations, and the only thing which we will ask of you is freedom to carry on business and to trade. If it is help that you want, any advice to help your Government, or help to establish your factories or your life in parts which are now decimated, then we are willing to give you all the help that is possible." There have been great British administrators who have helped the Chinese in the past. About that there is no question. There have been great missionary societies of every sort and kind, dealing with the body as well as with the soul. We have given some hostages in that way of our sincerity, but always overhanging it all there has been the business of mere money making and also the business of competition between the various nations. I should like to plead for a conference of nations interested in China and Japan. I should like to see a conference called, and I should like to see my country call it in a disinterested spirit, and in order, not that we should exploit and dominate the Chinese, but that we might bring to her service in actual deeds the principle of comradeship and brotherhood.

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: If I rise to follow the right hon. Gentleman, it is not because I have any presumption that I can give him that satisfaction which he can receive only from a representative of His Majesty's Government, but I should like to comment on some of the observations which he has made and to make some observations of my own upon the topics that he has raised. I desire, in the first place, to recognise not merely the obvious sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman, but the care which he took to give due recognition to the powerful influence which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has exercised in the councils of the League at Geneva, in bringing together nations which at the outset were very widely divided. No less do I desire to recognise his obvious anxiety not to
use any language which should make a settlement of the question more difficult by causing unforgiveable offence to one or other of the parties. That is very important. Therefore, I regretted all the more one or two harsh statements that the right hon. Gentleman made. He spoke of one or more acts of piracy by one of the parties. Hard words will never settle international conflicts. On the contrary, they are very dangerous. If, in fact, the difficulty has proved beyond peaceful settlement you may speak your mind freely, but when you are trying to secure agreement either between yourselves and another nation or between two other nations, every harsh word, every unduly harsh word, that you use is a further obstacle in your path, needlessly placed there by yourself.
There was one further observation of the right hon. Gentleman which I regretted. It was almost an aside, but he repeated, for the second time this Session, his desire that if trouble breaks out in the great international city of Shanghai, rather than protect our nationals or defend our interests there we should evacuate them from that city. I beg the right hon. Gentleman to think a little more of what the consequences would be. All that we desire in China is to see a strong Government, able to keep order and to protect foreigners going about their lawful avocations within its jurisdiction, and to defend itself and create those conditions in which our one interest, our one selfish interest, that we have there, namely, our trade, can alone thrive. To evacuate Shanghai is to destroy almost the whole of our trade in China. It is to deprive us of any influence in the councils of Asiatic Powers, and to mark us as a people who have forgotten our long traditions, a people who will neither lend help to those who need it, nor protect our own people when they are in danger. It is not in that way that you will spread the peaceful influence of Great Britain. It is not in that way that you will help to develop China or secure the gradual issue of China from her present difficulties, alike domestic and international. A great Empire like ours, with its great traditions and its great history, has obligations everywhere where it has rights. It can justify its rights only by
the discharge of its obligations, and if it forgets the one it will deserve to lose the other.
I turn to a consideration of the actual conflict between Japan and China. May I say, first, a word about our own position in regard to both those countries? We welcomed the new birth of Japan. We were the first of the Powers to agree to the abolition of the extra-territorial rights which before that re-birth we, in common with other foreign Western nations, and the United States of America, enjoyed in the Empire of Japan. If my memory serves me alight, we were the first Power to send an Ambassador to Japan. We have never had any quarrel with Japan. In difficult times, when we had not too many friends in the world and when Japan herself was engaged in a great war, she was our ally, and when the greatest war of all came she played the part of a faithful and loyal ally. She valued that alliance with us not merely for any military assistance that we might give, but because it was an outward and visible sign of our recognition of her position in the world and our acceptance of her as one of the great Powers of the time.
When that Treaty was terminated, not without some hesitation but in the hope of serving the larger interests of peace, it was the wish both of the Japanese and ourselves, above all of ourselves, that although the Alliance ended the friendship should continue in full force. We have had every reason to remember with pride and with satisfaction our association with that Island race, in some of whose circumstances we can see so great a likeness to our own, and although we may, as one of the members of the League of Nations, take our part in judging this case and in bringing the moral influence of the world to bear upon Japan, I hope that in all our actions we shall do nothing to prevent the restoration to the full of the old Anglo-Japanese friendship.
With China our relations have been in recent times far more difficult. We have been in quite recent years the victim of actions by the Chinese Government which are not justifiable on any reading of international law. We showed a great patience and, I think I may say, an amazing moderation. When one of our settlements was invaded, we retired from
it rather than fire upon the Chinese, who we thought were being incited by others into a quarrel with us, so that no more bloodshed should ensue. We were the first of the Powers, by the Note to which the right hon. Gentleman has already alluded—in spite of all the trouble, in spite of the fact that at that time China was the prey of civil war and there was no Government that could pretend to exercise any authority over the whole country—to lay down the liberal policy which we ourselves intended to pursue towards the new China, and which we invited other Powers also to make their own. Without waiting for the restoration of order we proceeded, in so far as the circumstances admitted, to translate our words into deeds and to give up some of the privileges which we enjoyed.
What was our object? A liberal nation like ourselves sympathises with a people trying to create a National Government, and with the rise of national hopes and aspirations. We have no interest in China except the trade which we do with her, a trade which is equally necessary and equally profitable to them as to us. We have no territorial ambition there or elsewhere. We want to see China united, strong and prosperous, and we are prepared to surrender the special position which we and other foreigners enjoy just as fast as China can constitute a Government with sufficient authority and sufficient force behind it to give us the protection which is given by every civilised and organised Government to the foreigner within its gates. Therefore, let us be careful in the language that we use. Let us do nothing to destroy the good feeling that has come back between the Chinese and ourselves, let us be ready, as the right hon. Gentleman says, to abandon the privileged position when our citizens can be secured in the ordinary rights of peaceful traders in a foreign country, and to give China whatever help she requires and asks for in the organisation of her affairs.
Those are the two nations, the two friendly nations, between whom these difficulties have arisen. The matter is brought before the League. Some people in this country, I would even say some of those who most often have the League on their lips, at once seem to forget the League and to think that it is for this country, by separate action, to take
whoever is the wrongdoer by the scruff of the neck and to oblige him to do right. What is the future of the League to be if any nation acts like that? I The British policy in China is, I think, based upon the Note which I issued in December, 1926, and has remained so ever since, whatever the fate of our governments. British policy in international affairs is now, as it has been for years past, based upon the League, and our international action, whenever possible, is to be taken with the League and through the League. It is not in this new world, which comprises the League of Nations, for any country to intervene by itself, ignoring the League, and to take the question out of the League's hands.
5.30 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman thinks that the League has moved too slowly. It has moved slowly, but I would invite the House to consider a little what its difficulties were. I would invite them to think of the immense distance at which these events were taking place and the difficulty, particularly in the early stages, of obtaining any accurate information, and the impossibility of disentangling the truth from the rival and conflicting stories told by the two Powers principally concerned. On the one side you have a very highly organised and very efficient Government; on the other side, the right hon. Gentleman really must not underrate the difficulties presented to every one by the disorganisation which reigns in China. In my earlier years at the Foreign Office armies were Marching backwards and forwards in civil war. Peking did not recognise the authority of Nanking. You never knew whether Nanking recognised or agreed with the authority in Canton, and even on the eve of these troubles, when it seemed as if the nationalist Government was gaining strength and beginning to take root, there were new internal troubles arising, new marchings of armies, and threats of civil war and a revolt by Canton against Nanking. To what Government, to what authority, was a nation requiring redress for deep grievances to address itself in China I What authority was there at Nanking, the seat of Government, which could guarantee protection for Japanese life in Manchuria What authority was there that could bind all China, as our
Government can bind the people in this country and as the Japanese Government can bind their own citizens That disorganisation was much more serious than the right hon. Gentleman seems to suppose. It made the difficulties of a solution much greater, and, if there is any excuse, and I think there was some excuse to be made for the course of action taken by the Japanese, it was to be found partly in the disorganisation of the Government of China and its inability to give protection and satisfaction and partly in the provocation which China had given and was giving at that moment.
I have spoken of the attack on ourselves, and the boycott of our trade. The Japanese Government failed to perceive what was clear to us, in the phrase which I heard used in a Committee room of this House in the interesting address by Sir Frederick Whyte, that the bayonet is not a good answer to the boycott; but do not on that account underrate the provocation of the boycott of the goods of a particular nation by another—widespread, persistent, uninterrupted by the Government of that country, nay more, encouraged by the Government of that country—do not underrate the provocation which that gave.
The right hon. Gentleman, in some of his questions and in some of his sentences to-day, seemed to think that before now the Foreign Secretary ought to have moved the League of Nations to put in force Sanctions against Japan. What Sanctions would they have adopted? Would it have been Article 16 of the Covenant? The most powerful is the economic boycott, and it was that weapon out of the armoury of the Covenant which the Chinese were encouraged to employ, by their Government, against Japan, as they had previously employed it against us. I once ventured to say to the representative of a litigant nation, if I might so call him, before the Council of the League that we had a maxim in our courts of equity—I hope the Foreign Secretary will not say that I am inaccurate—that those who came for relief must come with clean hands. China claims fulfilment of the Treaty, and yet it is not so long ago that the Chinese Government announced that by unilateral action they would terminate international
treaties and refuse thereafter to recognise rights which they had contracted to give. Those who come before the League and ask for the enforcement of Treaties ought to be careful to come with clean hands and be careful that they themselves are not open to the same reproaches which they bring against others.
In any international question I suppose it is hardly ever the case, probably never the case, that all the rights are on one side. It is seldom so in any political question. There are always two sides to a question—quite apart from the wrong side. The great difficulties of our domestic life, the great difficulties of international life, arise not because, where right is on one side and wrong on the other, the wrongdoer will not make redress, but because two irreconcilable but equally justifiable rights come into conflict, and that is rather the situation which has happened in the Far East. Do not let us be impatient if the League has taken time. Do not let us be angry and vexed if the League has shown a. consideration for both parties which some of us may think a little exaggerated. After all, the League is but 12 years old.
It has made astonishing progress. It has already won the respect of the nations. See what happened. When the trouble became acute everyone pointed to the League of Nations as the proper judgment seat to which the quarrel should be taken. No longer was there any talk of a repetition of the old scramble that took place when if one Power obtained a settlement all the other Powers had to be compensated, and, whether the trouble was the fault of the Chinese or not, it was always the Chinese that had to pay. The quarrel has been confined to the two parties, and, with growing assent, other nations of the world have come together to express what is the moral judgment of the world upon the quarrel.
I am no believer in the development of the League of Nations by force. The less we hear of the Sanctions of the League the stronger its moral authority will be, and unless its moral authority be strong, whatever the Sanctions are there will not prevent war, but will only come into force as acts of war after war has broken out. If you want to keep the peace, you have to rely on the conciliatory procedure provided in the Covenant.
The experience of these 12 years shows that the effect, slow perhaps, but sure, of argument before the Council, the formation of a world opinion, which requires time, and even a long time, brings a solution of the problem which could not have been reached in any other way.
When I ceased to be the British representative on the Council of the League of Nations I remember saying that I had one great regret. I had been the rapporteur of the Council on the subject of the Hungarian Optants, and how many hours I had spent listening to the arguments on the one side and the other or attempting to reconcile and bring the two parties together, I would not like to say. That work I had to leave unfinished. The committee of which I was chairman had to report that they had found no settlement, but the question was always before the Council and before the world, and the year after I left, this question was settled at The Hague. If we had attempted to risk everything and settle it by force in the early days it would never have been settled at all. Patience, consideration, conciliation, time, those are the weapons of the League and its Sanction is the moral condemnation of the world which gradually finds out which is the party that is unreasonable and brings its condemnation to bear upon that party. That is all I want to say about the Far East situation, except that I hope the Secretary of State will be able to confirm the more hopeful reports which we have been reading in the papers the last few days and tell us that real progress has been made. In spite of all disappointments, and in spite of all that has happened, I still believe that the League will do great service to the world and to the two countries specially engaged in settling this question, and that in so doing it will strengthen its own position and authority for meeting the next crisis which may arise. For that you must give it time, and again time, and you must use no hard or insulting language while the case is before it.
One word about the other subject with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt at the beginning of his speech, namely, the Disarmament Conference, or rather the Disarmament question. The right hon. Gentleman asked my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to tell him against whom the forces of this or that country
were directed. That is a rather dangerous question to put across the Floor of the House, and it would be more dangerous for my right hon. Friend to answer it. Perhaps the Foreign Secretary will agree that I do not exceed the bounds of discretion if I say that it is my confident belief that none of these armies or naval forces are being piled up against us and, indeed, so far from that being the case, that there is not a nation on the Continent of Europe which would not like to see the British Navy stronger, and which would not be glad if we had something like the old Expeditionary Force in existence today.
I will try to put it briefly. What is the trouble? Moral disarmament has got to proceed and not to follow effective physical disarmament. Nations do not keep armies for the pleasure of wasting their money. In these days, when wars are every man's and every woman's business, nations do not want war, and if they could be assured of safety they would gladly lessen the contribution which they have to make out of the life of the nation in order to conscript armies and to meet military expenditure. It is the lack of security which is the curse of our conditions in Europe to-day. It is the lack of security, or rather the lack of a sense of security—it is not quite the same thing, and sometimes it is quite a different thing—that makes the problem so difficult to settle. There was a passage which the right hon. Gentleman quoted from the Resolution adopted by the Assembly on the Far Eastern question on 11th March, and it is specially noticed and emphasised in the American Note which concludes the White Paper:
The Assembly proclaims the binding nature of the principles and provisions referred to above, and declares that it is incumbent upon the members of the League of Nations not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement, which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris.
If all nations knew that those from whom danger to them could possibly arise would honour their signature to the Covenant and to the Pact, you would have settled disarmament. It would have settled before now questions like Reparations and War Debts, which are held up only because this question is not settled. It is not the least of the services of the
League, in connection with the Far Eastern trouble, that it has reaffirmed the sacredness of treaties pledging the members of the League, in association with the United States, which is not a member of the League, not to recognise changes brought about by force or forceful pressure. If you can get that into the hearts and minds and practices of nations, if you get that, say, between the two great nations of Europe whose relations with one another are so difficult, so inconvenient for the rest of the world, you would get back to the policy that Herr Stresemann and M. Briand pursued together, which gave Europe four years of peace and progress—the firm sanctity of treaties, only to be changed by the assent of all parties. When that is not merely the spoken word but has the moral behind it, conviction of the peoples of all nations, your disarmament will become easy, your troubles will disappear, and you will find that the problems which perplex us so greatly to-day have almost solved themselves before your eyes.

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir John Simon): Everyone who has been in the House to hear the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) will recognise the value of the contribution that he has made, and I must express my personal obligations to him both for the kind references he has made to myself and for the clearness and authority with which he has expounded some of the principles that lie at the very base of British foreign policy, whoever conducts it. I will do my best to limit what I have to say in point of time, for the field is a very large one and I know that there are other Members who would like to take part in the Debate. Therefore, I begin by taking up a certain number of the questions put to me by the Leader of the Opposition, and I will do my best to give a matter-of-fact account of two or three recent occurrences about which he asked me.
First of all about Shanghai. The House will remember that the Special Assembly of the League of Nations on 4th March adopted a Resolution which did this: It recommended that negotiations be entered into by the Chinese and Japanese representatives, with the assistance of
the military, naval and civil authorities of Britain, France, Italy, and the United States,
for the conclusion of arrangements which shall render definite the cessation of hostilities and regulate the withdrawal of the Japanese forces.
I think the House will wish to have the latest information which is available about that matter. The first thing to note is, of course, already appreciated. After a, few days of doubt the cessation of hostilities was, in fact, established. That, of course, is a very different thing from making the cessation of hostilities fixed and definite, and still further is it removed from regulating the withdrawal of the Japanese forces. There have been a number of meetings and discussions since the date of the resolution at Shanghai, for this purpose. They have been carried out for the most part under the auspices of Sir Miles Lampson and his colleagues representing the other Governments which I have named. I do not wish to speak too hopefully, for one has learned from Rudyard Kipling of the dangers that lie in wait for anyone who tries to hustle the East, but the latest news is quite definitely encouraging, and this is what it is: Sir Miles Lampson reports that last Saturday was occupied in long and friendly meetings both in the morning and afternoon, as a result of which an agreed formula was reached covering the three essential points that were under discussion. This was drawn up and referred to the two Governments. A further meeting was provisionally fixed for yesterday.
Until a few moments ago, when the First Lord gave me some news, I had not received any official news of this further meeting, though I dare say that Members will have noticed in the "Times" this morning indications that the discussions were bearing fruit. But I am now able to say something more. The Japanese Ambassador came to see me this morning. He told me that orders had been given from Tokio to withdraw from Shanghai waters the greater part of the Japanese warships, whether cruisers, or destroyers or aircraft carriers. Orders have already been given from Tokio to withdraw some of the Japanese land forces, and we have definite information that some of the Japanese troops have been re-embarked.
I have just received news that, besides the mixed brigade which has been sent back, the 11th Division of the Japanese army has re-embarked. The re-embarkation began yesterday and should be finished to-day.
The First Lord has been able to inform me now of another matter which is of interest—that the preliminary peace discussions, to which I have just referred, are reported to have closed satisfactorily, and that the formal conference is to take place to-morrow. I should have added, perhaps, that my information is that of the Japanese navy in these waters five cruisers, 16 destroyers and two aircraft carriers are leaving Chinese waters. Japan is reducing her naval forces to something which is not very much greater than what they are in normal times in that part of the world. The First Lord tells me that the First and Third destroyer squadrons and the First aircraft squadron have actually sailed. I am very far from saying that this news, encouraging as it is, is the same thing as having secured the final arrangements which will be necessary before this part of the Far Eastern trouble is at any rate terminated so far as the definite stopping of fighting is concerned. I quite agree with the right bon. Gentleman that that is not the only thing to be considered. Still it is a definite and a satisfactory piece of news. I am very glad that the information has come to hand at this moment.
6.0 p.m.
The British policy in this matter has really been consistent throughout. I am perfectly aware that in some quarters it has been supposed that the action has been too slow. It is the privilege of the critics, and it is quite right that they should exercise it, to point out that there might be, in their view, other and better ways of conducting a very critical subject. But I would define British policy in this way: We have done our utmost, with the invaluable assistance on the spot of our own representatives, diplomatic and consular, naval and military, to hold the scales fairly in a very difficult controversy, and to carry out faithfully the principles of the League of Nations. We have supported and carried out its principles and provisions to the uttermost. It is some satisfaction for a man who has been representing his country at Geneva to
know that at every stage when the Council or the Assembly of the League reached a decision which involved the giving of aid on the spot, they never failed to turn to this country, among others, as the country which they knew was both able and willing to assist them. In the second place, I would say that British policy has consisted in this. We have very earnestly striven to co-operate with the other Powers especially interested in Shanghai. No advantage at all was to be gained if we were to take up a sort of position of priority or special virtue. The duty of a. faithful member of the League is to be available and ready to help to carry out the policy and the purposes of the League, as a member of the League. Whereas, some weeks ago I read many criticisms suggesting that British policy had failed to keep step with the United States, there is nothing from which the House of Commons as a whole can take more satisfaction than the last document which is printed in this new White Paper. There, after the Resolution of 11th March, for the carrying of which this country was in a large degree responsible, we have an official communication from the United States Government in which, through their representative, they express their gratification at the action taken by the Assembly of the League. The communication goes on to say:
My Government as one of the Powers which has special interests in the Shanghai Settlement has already authorised its representatives at Shanghai to assist in co-operation with the representatives of other Powers, similarly situated toward the consummation of those objectives.
I have the best reason for saying that now, after what I know has seemed to some an unhappily long period, we have reached a point in this matter where we are able to say that the United States are joining with ourselves and other great Powers in the Far East in endeavouring to promote the essential purposes which belong to the League of Nations and the Pact of Paris. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) said a word or two, and I am very glad he did so, on his view of the way in which the League of Nations can most properly act in a case like this. Patience, time, conciliation—he expounded that philosophy. I wish to associate myself with him in this way. My
own view has been, from the time I first studied this question, with all my might and main, that this Far Eastern case was a case where the League of Nations was most likely to be useful as a mediating force. Constant references to the stick that the League is supposed to have in the cupboard, is not the very best way to secure compliance with advice, or to exert influence as a great world organisation; and I would say with great respect to those who, for a moment, thought otherwise, that it is, I think, a mistake to assume that the League of Nations necessarily gains in effective strength in a case like this, by constant references to the fact that in its armoury there is the weapon of sanctions.
The authority which the League really exercises is founded upon its position as the authorised exponent and interpreter of world opinion, and that is one of the most terrific forces in nature. As my right hon. Friend has well said, the League has gathered in the last 12 years an immense fund of authority and of strength in that respect. It concentrates and gives expression to the better and calmer judgment of the civilised world in a way which was quite impossible in the days before the Great War. But, if I may speak quite frankly, anybody who has been in close touch with the proceedings and the discussions at Geneva during the last few months must be conscious of this—that the existence in certain events of powers of a coercive character, lodged in the League by its Constitution, does not necessarily add in every instance to the effective strength of the League as a mediating force. Some States may hesitate to join whole-heartedly in a declaration of principle for fear of the ultimate liability that may come upon them in taking action. Other States may feel less inclined to accept the guidance of the League because they resent the suggestion of such intervention.
The truth is that when public opinion, world opinion, is sufficiently strong and unanimous to pronounce a firm moral condemnation, sanctions are not needed. Yet that is the class of case in which sanctions would be most likely to be applied and while, therefore, Britain will stand most firmly by its obligations under every Article of the Covenant—and nothing that I have said in the least degree suggests the opposite—I suggest to all who
study this subject that it is best to keep the coercive and the mediatory functions of the League distinct, and that this has been proved to be a case in which the effective action of the League is best applied by mediatory and conciliatory action. I think there were a great many people some weeks ago who believed that this view, which I have held throughout, might lead to some weakness in the pronouncement which the League would make. Not at all. The Resolution carried by the special Assembly on 11th March—and I am most grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for what he very kindly said about my part in it—contains some extremely strong expressions and they are expressions that this country will stand by, and that every member of the League is bound to stand by. It is a Resolution which
proclaims the binding nature of the principles and provisions referred to above and declares that it is incumbent upon the members of the League of Nations not to recognise any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant of the League of Nations or to the Pact of Paris.
I invite the attention of the House to the fact that the Assembly of the League included a reference to the Pact of Paris, and that that reference was deliberately made by the members of the Assembly, and was the circumstance which brought to us the comforting assurance of the strong support and sympathy of the United States. In the same way, this Resolution, passed without a dissentient voice, affirms:
That it is contrary to the spirit of the Covenant that the settlement of the Sino-Japanese dispute should be sought under the stress of military pressure on the part of either party.
It is exactly for that reason that I have been very glad to see that, as far as Shanghai is concerned, there is this very considerable withdrawal of Japanese forces at the present time. It is perfectly plain that in this extremely complicated matter no one can pronounce a judgment, in five minutes and without considering all sorts of complications. It is clear that if you are going to reach a fair conclusion, wherever the rights and wrongs may lie, it cannot be reached under the immediate pressure of military force. I agree that this method of procedure which has been followed has been slower, and has been less exciting. I think I noticed that a distinguished critic of it the other day
was pleased to describe it as "nothing but feebleness and poltroonery," but I am prepared to stand here and defend it, and to say that I believe that it is by far the most effective way in which to exert the influence which this country rightly exerts, instead of by attempting less practical and I dare say more spectacular methods.
May I say a word about Manchuria—a very, very, difficult question which will require, and I have no doubt, receive, on a later occasion, much more elaborate discussion than is possible to-day in this comparatively short Debate. Let me first say that while I recognise—nobody more sincerely—that the Leader of the Opposition took no side, that he was merely presenting matters as he knew them, and was doing so, certainly, in the fairest spirit, at the same time I am a little surprised that his information should coincide with what is said by one side on this matter, but does not include what is said on the other side. The right hon. Gentleman asked me just now what I had to say with reference to a communication from the Chinese delegation to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations in which it is stated by the Chinese Government that according to information from the Inspector-General of Customs the Japanese Consul at Antung in Manchuria had asked Mr. Talbot, the Commissioner of Customs, to be prepared to hand over his functions and so forth. Obviously the right hon. Gentleman did not know of it, but I have in my hand an equally public document on the other side, which at least ought to be put into the scale. This is a communication which was sent to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations and was circulated to the Assembly a few days afterwards, from the Japanese delegation. It refers to this communication from the Chinese delegation. It says:
I have the honour to inform you that our Consul in that town informed Mr. H. M. Talbot, Customs Commissioner, of the contents of the Chinese communication and that the latter has replied to the following effect: (1) That he had been officially informed by the Superintendent of the arrival of the Japanese adviser; (2) that paragraph (1) of the Chinese communication is incorrect; (3) that the last part of paragraph (2) concerning the declarations of the Consul also incorrect; (4) that he (Mr. Talbot) in his telegram to Inspector-General Maze had expressed a personal opinion and had reported current rumours but that he had
certainly not attributed to the Japanese Consul the statements which Mr. Soong's telegram alleged him to have made.
I am not more anxious than the right hon. Gentleman to defend one side rather than the other but it is just as well that we should realise that in this as in so many other matters there is a considerable challenge as to the facts between the two sides.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that a question was put to him yesterday, and I think his answer was that he had no information on this matter?

Sir J. SIMON: No, I think not. I think I gave the right hon. Gentleman all the information which I could give him.

Mr. LANSBURY: But if the right hon. Gentleman had not the information why should I have it?

Sir J. SIMON: I am not criticising anybody. I am only saying that, in fact, these two documents stand side by side and we must realise that we are in the presence of a clash of statements, for and against. The matter actually stands, as far as I can discover, in this way. The House probably knows that the administration of the Chinese maritime Customs is an exceedingly important matter, not only for China, but for others also, because the Chinese Customs are, to a certain extent, charged with the liability of paying on foreign loans. There is an Inspector-General of Customs, who is a British subject, and under him are a number of Commissioners, but the actual administration of the Chinese Customs is in Chinese hands. It has happened more than once—it is not very unusual in China—that some section or province announces that it proposes to set up a separate government, but when that has happened questions have arisen, as is now the case, as to how the unity of the Chinese Customs administration was to be preserved. Hitherto I believe it has been effected in this way: A certain portion of the receipts of the Customs in the area in question is transmitted according to a standing arrangement to the banks which receive it. I think it amounts to the equivalent of a 5 per cent. import or Customs duty on what passes through those ports, and that is the fund out of which the foreign loans are primarily served. The balance, whatever it is, is
retained by the Chinese authorities. I have no information to suggest that that, which is an arrangement which has been made in other cases, is not an arrangement which is capable of being made in the case of Manchuria. It is the fact that there has been some communication to the Customs representatives there suggesting that Japanese advisers should be sent; it is not the fact, so far as I know, that anyone has attempted to dispossess the present authorities, and certainly we should take, and I think other countries would take, very grave and serious notice indeed of any suggestion that the Customs service of China was going to be so dealt with as to interfere prejudicially with the undoubted rights which various foreign interests have over the Customs which are charged with the repayment of the loans.
As to the suggestion that there is to be set up in Manchuria some separate State, let me put that matter in its true perspective. The right hon. Gentleman who opened the Debate appeared to assume, because he said it several times over, that as a matter of fact this new authority, whatever it is, is simply an authority set up by and under the support of Japan. It may be so, but no one is entitled to say so as an accepted fact, except on the principle that one is at liberty to pronounce judgment without waiting for an inquiry and in the face of the denial of one of the parties.

Mr. LANSBU RY: But she has occupied the territory.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman wishes to take up the position that, because he does not himself accept a particular proposition as true, therefore he scouts it as ridiculous. I would merely point out that in fact the Japanese Government has declared that it is no more likely to recognise that administration than any other, and does not admit that it is an administration which it has itself set up. I say nothing one way or the other. I am not defending the one side or the other, but it really will not do in these matters to accept as gospel information which is prejudicial to one side and to refuse to wait for an inquiry, if the inquiry is necessary. When the right hon. Gentleman spoke just now about waiting for the report of the Commission, I do not
ask him to wait so far as regards the influence and the advice of the League of Nations—not at all—but I do say that in these matters of controversial facts it is quite manifest that we ought to wait, and certainly the League of Nations must wait, for the report of its own Commission, which was appointed with the authority and by the vote of both China and Japan. It did not, so far as I know, waste any time in getting to work, and very naturally in the circumstances it has gone to Shanghai first, because its terms of reference cover Shanghai as well as Manchuria.
In the meantime, the right hon. Gentleman may rest perfectly assured that this alleged new administration in Manchuria is not an administration which I should think any country is likely prematurely to recognise. In the first place, nobody does recognise a Government which is set up in a portion of an area which has previously been regarded as one, not even in the case of China, without the fullest inquiry as to all the circumstances. We should need to be quite certain, as a matter of fact, that you had a responsible Government, that you had a Government which would really administer the territory, that you had a Government which would really enter into relations with foreign States, and that you had a Government which really was the genuine expression of the decisions of the neighbourhood to which you refer. In our case we are parties to the Nine Power Treaty, and it is a matter of the greatest importance that we, as well as every other party to that Treaty, should see to it that we do not encourage or countenance what might be a disregard or a violation of Chinese territorial administration. At the same time, there is no law, and there is no common sense in saying, that in no conceivable circumstance can there ever be a subdivision of an enormous area like China, for as a matter of fact the rising up, in this province or that, of an administration claiming to have a certain amount of independence is by this time a commonplace in Chinese matters, and I have never heard the matter challenged before.
May I, in conclusion, say a word as to what I claim that the policy which I am defending has helped to establish? I am not at all anxious to contend that Britain in this matter has been playing
a lone hand. On the contrary, I think it to be part of the justification of our policy that, in accordance with the advice given from some quarters, we have endeavoured to co-operate with others. I will put the matter in this way, and anyone who has been in Geneva during the last two or three months will be conscious of this: There have been four very considerable topics of anxiety and difficulty, each of them difficult, but still more difficult to reconcile one with another.
First of all—-and I deliberatey put it first—there is the duty, which was on this country as well as upon other countries, so to use its influence as to support as best it could, loyally and effectively, the principles of the League. Secondly, there is the duty, which I think every Foreign Secretary for Britain should regard as resting upon his shoulders, of so conducting his part of the matter as not to involve his own country in a situation which could only extend the difficulty. Thirdly, there is the difficulty, which constantly arises at Geneva, and of which I make no complaint, but which none the less has always to be watched and guarded against, of the possibility of a fissure arising, a difference arising, between the small States and the great States which have special responsibilities or opportunities. Fourthly—and the House will always bear this in mind—there is the tremendous question of whether the policy which Britain pursues at Geneva can be so conducted as to earn and to secure the sympathy of the United States of America.
Those are four things not very easy to reconcile in any case and, in connection with the Far East, perhaps almost more difficult to reconcile than in any other case that you could imagine, with the principles of the League, a thing which we all stand by; and it is useless to deny what Lord Grey pointed out in his speech a few days ago, that as a matter of fact the Far East provides in some respects very special difficulties. The duty of seeing that British policy is conducted along the ways which promise peace and security is a duty which presses specially upon us, when one thinks of the special relations of Britain with the Far East. The difficulty that arises when the small States of the League tend to take a different line from the great States of the League is at its maximum when you have a very large number of small States, from
South America and other parts of the world, which are just as devoted to the principles of the Covenant as the rest of us and which, in the nature of things, have no conceivable direct and immediate interest or risk in these Far Eastern problems. Lastly, it is not an easy thing to find a course which can be steered between your duty as a member of the League of Nations and the interest of preserving the full sympathy and respect of the Americans across the sea, who have declined to sign the Covenant.
I make this claim, not in the least for myself, but for the Assembly of the League itself, that the result to-day, imperfect as the accomplishment may be in many respects, anxious as the future is, has been to reconcile those four considerations. No man who fairly examines the Resolution of the Special Assembly of the League could dream of disputing that it is a sturdy, firm assertion of the essential principles upon which the Covenant of the League is based, and of the application of those principles to the matter in hand. In the second place, I am very happy to think that British policy to-day, whatever may be its shortcomings and its imperfections, at any rate is a policy which has kept us on terms of perfectly friendly relations both with China and Japan. In the third place, though I have no doubt of the special anxieties of the smaller States, I report to the House, and it is a literal fact, that when on the 11th March the Resolution of the Assembly was carried, there was a very happy indication of a reconciliation between the views of small States and great, and an acknowledgment that the great States had not, out of timidity in respect of their own responsibilities, failed to affirm what ought to be affirmed by everybody who believes in the League of Nations.
Lastly, while representatives of America are at Geneva in connection with the Disarmament Conference, and therefore sitting there as part of the audience while the debate was proceeding on the floor of the Assembly, I am entitled to claim, because it is officially reported now, that the Government of the United States recognise that the declarations which the Assembly made are declarations entirely in the spirit and along the lines which America would like to see adopted and, as I have reminded the House, with which the United States
in this matter is prepared to co-operate and associate herself. There is a very great deal of difficult work to do still, but I am very glad that this Debate has taken place, because it has given me the opportunity of making this report to the House, of thanking the right hon. Gentleman opposite and my right hon. Friend behind me for the kind references which they made to our efforts, and of asking that the House and the country shall put some confidence in this great organisation, much the best hope for peace in the world that is to be, which I agree has gone to work sometimes slowly and sometimes disappoints those who are its keenest friends, but which has shown itself in the present instance an invaluable influence on the side of peace and of reconciliation.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. COCKS: The right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks said that on an occasion like this it was natural to remind oneself of the fate of the man who, in Kipling's phrase, "tried to hustle the East." I do not think that right hon. Gentleman need fear that fate, or that there will be erected upon his grave the "tombstone white" inscribed with the "epitaph drear" of Mr. Kipling's poem. When he suggests that the action of the League has not been too slow, I would point out that, although we are very pleased to hear of what has happened at Shanghai, and, although the resolution that was passed by the League of Nations in respect of Shanghai is quite satisfactory in every way, yet if this dispute had taken place between two well-equipped Western Powers and the League had not been able to bring about a result by mediatory action until after six months, and alter several thousands of people had been killed, it would not have had in all likelihood any opportunity of mediating at all. I will adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain) and avoid the us of harsh terms which would make the situation more difficult. I have no intention of doing that. But I wish that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had not in his speech, which was supposed to be an impartial summing up of the situation between the two Powers, shown so much sympathy for Japan; it was, I
thought, to use his own phrase, a little exaggerated. After all, it was China which was attacked, and the Chinese people who were slaughtered.
However, we all ought to take part in this discussion with a feeling of great responsibility, and I do not intend to say anything which might possibly render the task of His Majesty's Government any more difficult than it is. We have other responsibilities in this House; we have responsibilities towards the League of Nations, towards international peace, and towards the security of the Empire of which we form a part, and it may be necessary sometimes for a private Member to say things which it would be very inconvenient for a Minister of the Crown to say. The Foreign Secretary said certain things about the League of Nations with which I am in wholehearted agreement. On 22nd February, he said in this House:
The British Government will direct the full influence of Britain, in conjunction with other Powers, whether they are members of the League or not, to support the moral authority of the League of Nations. … I say on behalf of the British Government, and on my own behalf, with deep conviction, that it is only by affirming with boldness and sincerity the principles of the League that we shall find the best means of restoring peace."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd February, 1932; col. 181, Vol. 262.]
At Geneva on 7th March he said:
The preservation of the authoritative influence of the League is the best hope for the future of the world.
He said much the same thing to-night in his concluding remarks. We on this side of the House support that wholeheartedly. The League of Nations is the one good thing which came from the War. It is the one hope in the international field for the future of humanity. There are certain people in this country who, unfortunately, wield a very great power who always seem to be trying to crab the League of Nations. The newspapers under their control, with large circulations, give very little space to the proceedings of the League, and their actions show that it would fill them with exultation if the League of Nations disappeared altogether. Such men as these are enemies of reason, if not enemies of civilisation. They are like a couple of intoxicated men in a garden trampling on the flower-beds, and crushing with their clumsy feet the buds and the promise of spring. We know that the
League is weak and young, and that it is not so strong as it will be one day, but it is the one secure thing we have in a shifting and changing and always dangerous world. It is our duty to build it up as a strong tower, to garrison it with the forces of democracy, and with its help to set up a system of international law and international peace.
Therefore, it was with some feelings of consternation that those of us who feel like that about the League of Nations realised last Autumn that certain actions that were taking place seemed, to say the least, rather inconsistent with the principles of the Covenant of the League of Nations. We feel that if these actions had been condoned, and if the results had been accepted, it would have been very dark for the future of the world. In saying that, I am not criticising the Japanese people. They are a very fine race and have fine qualities. The Germans also have fine qualities, and I am given to understand that the Japanese constitution in some respects is like that of Germany before the War, that is to say, that the Army and the Navy are not entirely under the control of the civil authorities, and that the leaders of the Army and Navy have direct access to the Emperor and are able to take action which is not wholly supported by their Government. That is a point which ought to be borne in mind in considering this question, because it makes it much more difficult than it would otherwise be.
With regard to Manchuria, contrary to the opinion which has been expressed in many newspapers and by many people, that country is not, and never can be, an outlet for the growing surplus population of Japan. A great many people say that the Japanese population is increasing rapidly and that there is nowhere for them to go, but that Manchuria is near and a very suitable place for them. As a matter of fact, the climatic conditions are unsuitable to the Japanese, who are very susceptible to extremes of temperature. Manchuria is extremely cold in winter and hot in summer, and for that reason the Japanese will not go there. A great deal of Japanese capital has been invested there, however, and Japanese business men have helped to develop the country, but only about 300,000 Japanese are there among a population of nearly 30,000,000 Chinese. This Chinese population is growing at the rate of nearly
1,000,000 a year, which is about equal to the increase of the population of Japan. Manchuria, then, can never be a Japanese colony. It is a Chinese province and cannot be regarded as an outlet for the Japanese. It is a country with very rich resources, both mineral and vegetable, and has a complicated diplomatic history into which I do not intend to go.
Again, I must bring to the notice of the House, as I did the other night, a particular treaty which affects this question —that is, the Nine-Power Treaty. I want to refer to three Clauses of the first Article of the Treaty. By this Treaty, to which Japan, America and ourselves are parties the signatories agree to respect the sovereignty, the independence, and the territorial and administrative integrity of China; to provide the fullest and most unembarrassed opportunity to China to develop and maintain for herself an effective and stable Government; and to refrain from taking advantage of conditions in China in order to seek special rights or privileges which would abridge the rights of subjects or citizens of friendly States and countenancing action inimical to the security of such States. That, as the "Times" said the other day, is a self-denying ordinance. The "Times" on 11th March went on to say:
Other countries that signed with them"—
that is, the Japanese—
the self-denying ordinances of the China treaties cannot afford to let one country gain selfish advantages by disregarding conditions Which they commonly imposed upon themselves.
We shall all agree to that. The next point I want to mention is Article 7, by which the parties agreed that
there shall be full and frank communication between the contracting powers concerned
whenever a situation arose which involved the application of the Treaty in the opinion of any one of them. In 1928, Count Uchida came to Europe to sign the Kellogg Pact. While he was here he visited London in order to explain Japanese policy. On his return to Japan, rumours spread that there had been some alteration in policy and a closer rapprochement between ourselves and Japan. It was even rumoured that it was possible that the Anglo-Japanese alliance was to be renewed. Colour was
given to that rumour by a speech which was given by the Lord President of the Council, who was then Prime Minister, at the Lord Mayor's banquet, in which he said:
The spirit of the historic Anglo-Japanese alliance still flourishes, and constitutes one of the strongest guarantees of peace in the Far East.
As a result of that statement, questions were put in the House to the then Foreign Minister, who replied in this way on 28th November:
Relations between Great Britain and Japan …. are based on the obligations of full and frank communication specified in Article 7 of the Washington China Treaty, of 1922 …. In these circumstances the two Governments have agreed informally"—
I suppose that that was on the occasion of the visit of Count Uchida—
that the close contact which they desire to maintain can best be promoted and developed by constant communication and consultation between their respective Ministers at Yekin."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November, 1928; col. 395, Vol. 223.]
Has this full, frank and constant communication taken place between this country and the Japanese Government during the last nine or 12 months? If it has regarding Manchuria, then we have a certain responsibility for what has been happening. If it has not taken place, it means that the Japanese Government have infringed the special pledge to us as well as the public pledge given in the Nine-Power Treaty. I put that question the other night, but the Under-Secretary did not reply owing to pressure of time, and if he replies to-night I shall be grateful.
Let me come to some of the difficulties in Manchuria. I am not one of those who say that the Japanese in Manchuria have no grievance. As the Foreign Secretary said, until we have full evidence we have no right to say that. I have no doubt that they have many grievances in connection with their treaties, with the land question, and with a certain amount of trouble with some of the people with whom they have to deal. Our contention is that all those disputes could have been settled by reference to arbitration or the League of Nations, but the Japanese Government persistently refused to agree to this course. It is not a matter of waiting for the evidence, but a question of the attitude of the Japanese Govern-
ment on that point of principle. If the Japanese had agreed to arbitration upon this case we could suspend judgment, but when they say, "We will not arbitrate at all," we reply that up to now, at any rate, judgment must go against them, because they have failed to use the machinery for dealing with such cases set up by the League of Nations to which they had agreed as a member of the League.
Anyhow, these grievances resulted last summer in a great many regrettable incidents. There was a dispute between Korean farmers and Chinese farmers in Manchuria, and certain people were killed, and following upon that there were rather serious anti-Chinese riots in Korea in which many Chinese were killed, and, it is alleged, a great deal of damage was done to Chinese property. Then there was the case of the Japanese officer who, while on some mysterious errand in the interior of Manchuria, was killed—it was thought, he was murdered. Nobody knows what he was doing there at the time. That led to strained relations between the two States. On 18th September, the Japanese alleged that certain sleepers had been taken from the railway, that some slight damage had been done. I have not been to the place, but I have seen photographs which show that it was a quite trivial thing, and, of course, the Chinese stated that they had not done it. Anyhow, on that night the Japanese military authorities seized Mukden and the chief places on the railway, and by the way they acted it looked as though the whole thing had been carefully planned beforehand.
The Chinese immediately appealed to the League—on 21st September. On the next day the Council of the League, showing that they did not altogether mind trying to hustle the East, appealed to the two Governments to refrain from any action which might aggravate the situation, and resolved, in consultation with China and Japan, to find means to enable the Japanese troops to be withdrawn to the railway zone. The Japanese troops have a right by treaty to occupy the railway zone to guard the railway, and not the right to go beyond it, as they had done on that occasion. China agreed to that, but Japan said, "No, we are acting in self defence—although we have withdrawn part of our troops to the zone and we intend to withdraw more as the
situation improves." The Council adjourned till 14th October. The Japanese did not withdraw, because presumably the situation did not improve. It was not likely to improve as long as Japanese soldiers were going to places where the inhabitants did not wish them to go.
Repeated protests were made by the League and the United States, but Japan extended her operations and bombarded Chin Chow from the air. Chin Chow had become the seat of Government after the Japanese had captured Mukden. The Japanese military authorities stated that they would not recognise Chinese administration in Manchuria. Whether they were authorised to do so by the civil Government of Japan I do not know, but the Japanese military authorities made that declaration as far back as the beginning of October. On 13th October the Council met again. They called upon Japan to withdraw to the railway zone before 16th November, and upon China to take measures to ensure the safety of the lives of the Japanese people. China accepted that request, but Japan said that any evacuation would have to depend upon a preliminary agreement on certain fundamental principles. As the House knows, they would not for some considerable time state what those fundamental principles were, but eventually it was discovered that what they regarded as fundamental principles were certain treaty rights which they had with China regarding Manchuria. Japan refused to lay those treaties on the table of the League of Nations, and stated that they were going to settle the matter by direct negotiations. On 26th October, China offered to refer all these principles to arbitration, but again Japan refused. Mr. Yoshizawa, the Japanese representative of the League and now the Japanese Foreign Minister, said in a speech in Paris:
The Japanese Government is determined to arrive at an understanding which will compel China to fulfil the treaty obligations before the withdrawal of troops to the railway zone is begun.
Meanwhile, troops were continuously moved forward, and it was reported then that a new State was to be set up and that the boy ex-Emperor of China, who was in Japanese territory, was to be appointed President.
On 16th November, the date by which Japan had been requested to withdraw,
the Council met again. There was a complete deadlock. It was the first meeting of the Council which our present Foreign Minister had attended. A long discussion took place, but Japan refused to allow these particular treaties which were in dispute to be discussed by the League or have the matter settled by arbitration. The peculiar thing about these treaties is that it is not clear to anybody what they are. Certain of them were secret treaties, and certain of them the Chinese say they have never signed. Perhaps the most important treaty was that in which, as Japan alleged, China had signed an agreement to say that she would not construct any railways in Manchuria without first consulting Japan. Japan has suggested that other railways have been constructed by the Chinese and by other people with foreign capital which will cut across the interests of their own railway in Manchuria and take trade from it. The Chinese say they have never signed that particular treaty, and are willing to go to arbitration about it or to submit it to judicial arbitrament at The Hague, but the Japanese refuse to agree to that. Eventually the League decided to send a Commission to Manchuria to find out all about the dispute, but it was a Commission with limited powers—powers which had been limited as a result of Japanese pressure which had been brought to bear to alter the original terms under which it had been suggested the Commission should act.
Without wishing to be hypercritical, most of the criticisms I have heard and read of the action of the Foreign Secretary centre about that Council. It has been stated, and I am sure the Foreign Secretary knows it has been stated, that he should have taken a stronger line at that particular Council. That Council meeting almost stultified itself by its action at that moment. I read in a paper, although I do not say whether it is true or not, that his attitude was that although the Japanese were technically wrong they were morally right—that that was the line of action which he was taking. On 24th November another incident of an unhappy character occurred. The Japanese Government had given a formal undertaking to Mr. Stimson not to occupy Chin Chow, but in spite of that they ordered the Chinese troops to withdraw beyond the Great Wall and occupied Chin Chow, and so, by the beginning of this year,
practically the whole of Manchuria was occupied by Japanese military forces. The Chinese had withdrawn. It must be said on behalf of the Chinese Government that they did not use military means to stop the Japanese advance. They put their whole case into the hands of the League of Nations, and in many cases their troops were ordered not to resist but to withdraw peacefully.
As bearing on the question of the independent State which has been set up in Manchuria, during all this time there were continual rumours of an independent State being formed. They came from Japanese sources; indeed, there was hardly anybody else in Manchuria who could say anything, because most of the news about Manchuria came through Tokio. Confirmation was furnished by the Japanese commander-in-chief of the fact that an independent State was going to be formed in a statement that all relations with China were to be cut off. It was not a statement by a, minor commander, but by the Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Army in Manchuria, General Honjo. Questions were asked in this House, and I submit that the Government, being apprised of these things, and knowing it was probable that an independent State was to be formed, which would complicate matters very much indeed, ought to have used certain diplomatic influences to inform the Government of Tokio that we should not regard the formation of that State in a friendly way but would think it undesirable. On 9th March the new State was actually formed.
My criticism of the Foreign Secretary is summed up in this way. We regret that at the Council meetings in November he did not take a stronger line. We regret that on 7th January, when the American Note was issued, and America warned Japan that she would not recognise the legality of any situation de facto or any treaty or agreement entered into between the two Governments as a result of force, that we in this country did not support her action. We feel that by our not supporting America at that time encouragement was given to the extreme military party in Japan. If we had supported America then the new State might not have been proclaimed, as it was on 9th March. This
is possible too—this is something which if it is true we must regret—that if stronger action had been taken at that time Shanghai would not have been invaded, and many lives would have been saved. Anyhow, whether it was due to our inaction or not, a peculiarly difficult situation has been created by the establishment of this new State.
7.0 p.m.
I do not want to say very much about Shanghai, but there is one thing I would like to say. The operations of the Japanese in Manchuria naturally caused a great deal of indignation in China. We have heard a good about the boycott, but the action of a Japanese army in seizing a whole province naturally caused very great indignation and a severe boycott of Japan did follow; perhaps it was the only weapon, as it was the most powerful weapon, which China could use. As a result there were disturbances in Shanghai—a very small affair which could easily have been localised. Indeed, the Japanese Foreign Office itself said that it was an affair which could be settled on the spot by the Japanese Consul-General and the Mayor of Shanghai, and, in fact, it was so settled, for when the Japanese Consul-General sent his ultimatum to the Mayor of Shanghai it was accepted by the Mayor and not only accepted by him but accepted to his satisfaction. When the Foreign Secretary made the admirable statement he did make on the Shanghai situation a few weeks ago, I rather regret that he omitted, by inadvertence, I am sure, to mention that the Japanese Consul-General had accepted the reply of the Mayor of Shanghai as satisfactory. We all know what has happened since then. In spite of the repeated protests from the League, from America and from the local authorities at Shanghai, Shanghai was invaded, troops were poured into the place, reinforcements were sent and an attack was made on a large scale. On 25th February, after the attack had started, there came that remarkable letter from Mr. Stimson which, I dare say, had considerable influence at the March meeting at the Assembly. What happened then was that the Japanese were faced with the united disapproval of the world and by the heroic resistance of the Chinese troops, whose action must not be under-estimated in this matter. As I have had to criticise the
Foreign Minister, I would now like to say that I congratulate him upon his efforts in carrying the resolution which was eventually adopted by the Assembly. I believe that he had a good deal to do with the form actually taken by that resolution, which brought the League of Nations into line with the position taken up by the United States.
I want to say a word about the position of Manchuria as it is to-clay. What is the position there? What is the treaty position, and what is the position of His Majesty's Government? There is the Nine-Power Treaty, and there is the gloss or the explanation which has been put upon that Treaty by the Foreign Minister at that time, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who said on 13th July, 1928:
The Government regard Manchuria as being part of China; they do not recognise Japan as having any special interests in that territory, other than those conferred by Treaty."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th July, 1928; col. 2637, Vol. 219.]
On 30th July, in the same year, he said:
We do not recognise Manchuria as anything but a part of China. We recognise that Japan has great interests in Manchuria …. But our interest is in a united China under one Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1928; col. 1835, Vol. 220.]
Then we have the Note from America:
The United States Government does not intend to recognise any situation or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenants and obligations of the Pact of Paris.
Then we have Mr. Stimson's letter which visualises the possible revision of the Washington Treaty and of the London Naval Treaty, if the situation in the Far East is not rectified in accordance with the principles which he has enunciated. Finally, we have this League Assembly declaration:
Any infringement of territorial integrity or any change of political independence brought about in contravention of the Covenenat is not to be recognised by members of the League. Similarly, having regard to the article of the Pact of Paris it is incumbent upon members of the League not to recognise any settlement or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the Covenant.
Having regard to that series of statements, the British Government should, I think, acting, of course, in conjunction with the League of Nations and the United States of America, refuse to recognise at any time and in any circum-
stances what seems to me, in spite of the fact that the legal mind of the Foreign Minister asks us to suspend judgment, to be a Japanese puppet state.
I do not wish to say anything which would cause the task of His Majesty's Government to be harder. I will not refer therefore to what has been published in books and papers, and especially broadcast in America, as to the aims of, shall I say, the military party in Japan in occupying Manchuria. As everybody knows, certain very grave statements have been made. It might not be wise to go any further into that matter at present. If those statements are correct, it would mean that unless a satisfactory settlement is made now of this question, and if the position in Manchuria is not regularised according to the Covenants of the League of Nations and of the Treaties that have been contracted by ourselves and by Japan, a very serious situation might arise in the future, which would affect the safety and integrity of the British Empire. Let this country stand very firmly on the side of international law. Let us show to the Japanese people that their grievances can best be dealt with by relying upon the common justice of the world; that the grievances both of Japan and China may be removed in that way by reasonable settlement and by quiet discussion of their aims round a table, or by judicial arbitration; that the Japanese people can get better results from such a proceeding, and that the future will be more satisfying in every way if they will rely upon arbitration by reason, rather than upon the self-slaying weapon of the sword.

Sir RENNELL RODD: Opportunities for discussing foreign questions are very rare in this House, but when they do occur, the field of range is generally retricted. The subjects under review, Manchuria, Shanghai and Disarmament, appear to me to be an invitation to consider the position of the League of Nations, which has been, to some extent, on its trial, for this country and for the world. I do not think that one really can consider the armaments question without going a little more deeply than has been done to-day into the position of the League of Nations as it stands. I have risen to defend the League of Nations in its action, which has been very widely criticised by opposing schools of
feeling which appear to do so without very much consideration for the history of the recent crisis, and without any due recognition of the very great benefits we have already received from the existence of the League of Nations. Having been twice a delegate to the League of Nations, I have formed an opinion, to which to some extent I still adhere, as to the obstacles which must exist in the realisation of the ideal conception of the League of Nations, at any rate for the present. The first is inherent in the constitution of the League itself, which has to be composed of nations in different stages of the national development, exhibiting very varying degrees in their social, ethical and moral evolution.
Another obstacle which is certainly not inherent, has been the introduction into the League of Nations of the group system, owing to the contraction almost immediately after the War of a great system of alliances, which naturally constitute a very dominant factor in the equation in Europe, and which may be expected to act as a single bloc. I have always believed that alliances were contrary to the best conception of the League of Nations. However, there they are. They have had certain very distinct results. They mean the encircling, and not only the encircling, of a certain number of Powers, against whom they were in the first instance directed in the interests of security. They have almost meant the isolation of other States. This is incidental only, but that very isolation has compelled those other States to contemplate forming counterbalancing groups, and it has tended to make them increase instead of diminish their armaments. It is particularly in the interests of the Disarmament question, that I have drawn attention to the danger to the League of Nations of the group system which grew up almost with its first inception. That is not all, because a system of alliances which might be able, on a mobilisation order, to put something like 6,000,000 men in the field in a very few days, must constitute a very dominant factor in the councils of an international assembly, and it must even affect economic questions and economic issues. Therefore, we naturally tend to increase the exasperation and the resentment of those countries which felt that they are
excluded, and tend therefore to diminish the prospect of any permanent settlement in Europe.
In directing attention to this conception, I am not dealing with the Eastern question, but rather with the European question, and with the general aspect of the League of Nations with regard to Disarmament. The formation of those groups is really the return to the old game of the balance of power, of which we, in the old days, were considered to be the most zealous exponents. In the fundamental principles of the League of Nations, there should be no room for the old game of the balance of power. Those considerations affect principally the question of Disarmament and the European situation. They do not touch the very complicated issue which has arisen in the Far East, in regard to which there has been very much criticism—unjust as I regard it—of the action of the League, especially in recent months. We notice in this country two opposing sections that have recently combined in criticising the action of the League of Nations. The one group has evidently never had any real sympathy with the League of Nations, derives a sort of malicious pleasure from the League having failed to prevent military action and maintains that the impotence of the League has been practically demonstrated. The views of the more earnest supporters and partisans of the other group generally find expression on the platforms of the League of Nations Union, or in letters to the Press through the officers of the League of Nations Union. Those views affirm that Japan has deliberately violated the Covenant and credit her with far-reaching ambitions of Asiatic dominance. It is even suggested that her action is a menace to British Dominions, and we are called upon to take measures, and to institute an economic blockade—a first act of war—and in the interests of the world's peace to incur the risks and let lose the rancours of international conflict. In their view, the League must either act on those lines or acknowledge defeat; and action in the present instance could, it seems to me, only be contemplated by one Power within the League.
What has been the action of the League? Has it not been in accordance with its legitimate and most essential functions, namely, to gain time and to bring the moral opinion of the world to
bear upon a serious conflict, with a view to finding an ultimate solution? I do not propose to enter into the merits of the Manchurian dispute, and I would only commend those who jump at facile conclusions to study its historical antecedents over some 30 years since the Sino-Japanese war and the Russian-Japanese war before coming to a decision. Mean while, the League has despatched a Commission there to collect evidence, and we shall be best advised to await their report. When the unsolved Manchurian issue brought about the unfortunate development of Shanghai the League did all that was possible to circumscribe the area of hostilities, and I think no one can doubt that, but for the action of the League and the zealous co-operation of those representing its most influential members, the range of the conflict would have been considerably extended. In an issue so involved, with the additional complication of an economic boycott which has been enforced over a number of years, with the gravely perplexed internal situation and lack of supreme central authority in China, any immediate and clean-cut settlement could hardly have been anticipated. There were bound to be checks and resumptions of activity in negotiations, and the only wise policy is patience, and the avoidance of any measures likely to aggravate the intensity of feeling on the one side or on the other among peoples with both of whom we desire to be on the best of terms.
That hostilities have been suspended, that negotiations continue, that the parties to the dispute have been brought together, and important progress made is no small achievement. I for one can only congratulate the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the part he has so ably played at Geneva, seconded on the spot by the efforts of Sir Miles Lampson and Admiral Kelly in one of the most difficult issues which has arisen for many years. We, and not least the influence of the British Navy, have been the essential peacemakers on the spot, acting as the interpreters and agents of the League of Nations at Geneva. I have yet further reason for congratulating the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the part which he has played in the preliminary phase of the Disarmament Conference. On this issue but few words are necessary from me, because I have, more than
once, in this House and many times outside, expressed my opinion that there can be no real disarmament in the spirit of Article 8 of the Covenant while the system of universal manhood conscription is maintained by the majority of other nations. It would be easy to demonstrate that the claim they have advanced that their effectives have been diminished by shortening the term of military service cannot be seriously sustained, and that in reality it only means an even larger number of men, sufficiently trained for this purpose, passing on into the three categories of immediately revocable, and of first and of second line reserves with a liability to recall for 28 years. You have only to look at the proportion of artillery to infantry in effective Continental armies to realise that that proportion means a provision for an army three or four times greater than that under arms at any given moment in peace. I have, therefore, rejoiced to see that the British delegation has, in its disarmament proposals, advanced as apostulate the limitation or restriction of conscription. Without sonic such restriction I do not see any great immediate hope for practical results in the all important issue of disarmament. What does seem to me perfectly clear is that, until other nations show some more definite disposition to follow the lead which we have already abundantly given, it is impossible for us to advance any further along a road on which we have perhaps already overstepped the bounds of security.
Finally, Disarmament leads me back to the consideration of the position in Central Europe—for the moment perhaps the most urgent of all questions for solution—apart from the fact that the inequalities of armaments are one of the chief causes of unrest in Europe. We welcome the decision, as yet unconfirmed, but apparently a national one in Germany, in favour of that great patriot who has wisely guided the destiny of his country through phases of unprecedented difficulty, and we deplore the loss to France of another illustrious patriot over whom the grave has closed in the midst of his work for the pacification of Europe. Let us hope, however, that those invaluable influences will remain active still, for in that is the only hope of the regeneration of the world. The conflict between the two peoples is
a very ancient one. It is nearly 2,000 years since the great historian Tacritus pointed out that the Gauls and the Germans were separated by a river, a mountain range, and their mutual distrust of one another. Europe to-day is menaced by other and even graver issues, against which the soundest insurance would be the elimination of that ancient conflict. Do not doubt that agreement between these two peoples would find an echo, and arouse a spirit of co-operation all over the world. After the Great War, with its long record of passions and convulsion, it was impossible for many years to expect any serious movement towards reconcilation, but we should remember that the masses of the people were only the instruments of war who followed, and obeyed, and suffered. Are they not entitled to peace? Since then nearly a decade and a half has passed. The prolongation of the spirit of war into an era of peace must have its reactions on the welfare and happiness of all mankind. I trust and believe, Mr. Speaker, that that great people who have been proud to call themselves the most generous of nations will, at the forthcoming Conference in June, make that noble gesture which is expected of them to assist in ending the unrest of the world.

Mr. PICKERING: I intervene in this Debate, although I believe the time for Adjournment is very near. I hope that I shall have an opportunity of continuing my remarks when this Debate is resumed. I should not have risen on this occasion but for the fact that I hold a unique position in regard to this Debate which has been mainly upon Japan. I lived in Japan for four years, not as an alien serving alien interests, but along with other foreigners under the Japanese Government, and very much as one of the Japanese themselves. At one time I was a ratepayer in Japan and had a vote, and voted at a municipal election in Japan. I think that is a unique experience for any Member in this House. Living with the Japanese As I did, and having some very intimate friends there who are now leading statesmen in Japan on the more Liberal side, I felt that I might be able to contribute something of interest to this Debate. In the first place, what astonishes me most is the difficulty which
the people of this country seem to have in understanding what all this dispute between China and Japan is about. Of course, it is impossible for us to know the full history of every foreign nation, but what we do want is some knowledge of the history of Japan, China and Manchuria, and I think I shall be able to state briefly the most recent events which led up to this crisis.
It is important to remember that Manchuria, which China now speaks of as being an integral part of herself, has had a very uncertain existence for quite a generation as a member of the Chinese nation. Not only was Manchuria once under Russian influence, but the Manchurian railway was a Russian railway until Japan, by her victory, acquired the right which Russia had got up to that time—

It being Half-past Seven of the Clock, and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Edinburgh Corporation (Sheriff Court House, etc.) Order Confirmation Bill. [By Order.]

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."
I should like to assure the House, in the first place, that this Amendment represents no factious or capricious opposition. It is not the outcome of any sectional opinion, nor is it the offspring of any partisan prejudice. We who are opposing this Measure are, I hope, neither cranks nor faddists, and we certainly are not partial to any set of people in connection with this Bill, nor to any particular class of ideas. We are a number of Scottish Members who are anxious to perform our duty to our country at this moment in a matter which we consider to be of vital importance. Whatever shape this Bill takes, the real question which lies behind it all is the acquisition
of a site upon which to build a National Library for Scotland. That, I should think, is an object magnificent enough and sufficiently inspiring to engage the most conscientious efforts of all of us.
We are eager to see this great work of national construction undertaken and carried to a finish; we are zealous to ensure that it shall be built, as it deserves to be, upon the best available site in Edinburgh, sufficient to stand, for as many centuries as we dare to contemplate, as the wellspring of knowledge in our native country, capable of being indefinitely expanded in order to meet the growth of the population and the needs of the Scottish people. Our quarrel with this Measure is that, as we think, it does not meet those needs. It does not give us that assurance which we should desire that this great National Library, in a country from early times devoted to learning, will have that distinction and importance which it ought to receive at the hands of the generation which is privileged to build it.
I have to direct my attention, in the first place, to the facts of the case, but there are certain things which I should like to mention at once, which seem to reinforce the attitude of those who oppose the passing of this Measure into law. The first and most striking thing is that there is no public opinion in Scotland in favour of this Bill. The people of Edinburgh, of course, are those who are most immediately interested from a geographical point of view, but all Scotland is interested. Taking the people of Edinburgh, the Merchant Company of Edinburgh, which has done more for education, I should think, than almost any other institution in this land, is not in favour of this Bill. The Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh is not in favour of this Bill. The Architectural Associations of Edinburgh are hostile to this Bill. The Cockburn Association, which makes it its special duty to preserve the beauty of Edinburgh as it already exists, and to enhance it by whatever public buildings may require to be built in the future, is unanimously hostile to this Bill. The Town Council of Edinburgh is not in favour of this Bill—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I shall have some explanation to give later about that matter, but let me read the resolutions passed by the Town Council of Edinburgh, the first on the 26th March, 1931, and the confirming
resolution on the 22nd April, 1931. The first states:
That the Edinburgh Town Council is of opinion that the Sheriff Court House should remain in its present position, and that the National Library should not be built on the site suggested by the National Library Trustees.
That resolution goes directly in the teeth of the provisions of this Bill, and, as I have indicated, it was confirmed by the town council on the 22nd April, 1931. These resolutions have never been rescinded nor in any way qualified. I shall state in a moment how it has happened that the town council of Edinburgh should be promoting this Bill, but let me assure the House that, so far as declared opinion is concerned, the majority of the town council of Edinburgh is hostile to its provisions, and the council only appears as the promoter owing to certain adventitious circumstances which I shall proceed to explain later. The Press of the East of Scotland is opposed to this Bill. The "Scotsman," which is far and away the most authoritative organ of public opinion in the East of Scotland, no later than last Saturday, gave a strong expression to the effect that public interests are being disregarded in the matter of this Order, and that it hopes that the House of Commons will correct the error which has been made. These are certainly extraordinary circumstances considered in relation to a project which, as would have been supposed and expected, would enlist the enthusiasm and zeal of the whole of Scotland, and, in particular, the support of the people in whose midst the building is to be placed.
The history of the question is not in any obscurity, but let me remind the House how we emerged into the circumstances of to-day. In 1923, the Advocates' Library in Edinburgh, which is the only great library in Scotland possessed of a collection of books comparable with those of the great libraries of England, like the Bodleian, was given by the Faculty of Advocates as a gift to the nation. It was an extremely handsome gift, but, like many Scottish gifts, it had a particular quality, in that it relieved the Faculty of Advocates of an expenditure which was gradually becoming overwhelming. The gift having been made, it was necessary to consider, not merely the condition of the existing
stock of books, but also how they were to be housed in the future, with the additions which succeeding years would produce; and, accordingly, the question of extending the library or building a new one became very important.
Two things emerged which are quite creditable and quite explainable, but I think they have given a twist to the whole of the proceedings on this matter which has never become entirely straightened out. The first was this: There is a piece of vacant ground in close juxtaposition to the old Library, and it was not an unnatural thing to wish that the new Library, or the extension of the old Library, should be placed there. I am myself a member of the Faculty of Advocates, and have been so for something like 26 years, and I feel very strongly all the circumstances which would make me desire to build the Library in that position. The happiest days of my life were spent in Parliament House, Edinburgh, and, accordingly, everything by which I should be moved in the way of sentiment would induce me to wish that there should be no separation between the old Library and the new, or the extensions that should be made; and I avow with complete sincerity to the House that nothing but an overmastering conviction that the Library could not be efficiently accommodated and operated on that site would make me an opponent of this Measure to-night.
The second thing which I think affected people's minds unduly was the fact that, while the Faculty of Advocates gave this great gift to the nation, they at the same time retained 40,000 volumes which are of particular importance to students of legal history, but which might also be of great concern to anybody dealing with wider matters of historical knowledge connected with Scotland. A desire arose, accordingly, to have these 40,000 volumes as free of access to the reading public as the large collection of other books housed in the Library, and that induced the view that there should be a connection between the place where these 40,000 volumes are kept, namely, in the precincts of Parliament House, and the new building that should be erected.
I think far too much stress has been laid upon this matter. Anyone who has had cause to make any scientific investigations
or historical inquiries knows that you may require to have access to many different centres of reading before you can get the material that you need, and I cannot imagine that it would be any serious difficulty for anyone studying topics which required access to these 40,000 volumes to go to the Advocates' Library for the purpose of seeing those volumes. The Advocates have always been, not only willing, but eager to allow the reading public access to their Library, and the opportunities are there, and still would be there, for consultation of these 40,000 volumes; and, wherever else the other collection was kept, there would be no difficulty in the way of anybody going to the separated Library for the purpose of consulting any books in which he was specially interested. But I am sure that particular circumstance has weighed far too much in the argument upon this matter and has guided far too greatly the conduct of the Library trustees who have been charged with the business of providing suitable accommodation for this collection of books.
There is added to that circumstance another. Across this small space of ground that lies behind the existing library there arises a great erection known as the George IV Bridge, and on the top of one edge of that, bridge there is the sheriff court. I cannot exaggerate the convenience that there is in the situation of the court of session and the sheriff court house being near to each other. I have many times descended by the stairs of the Parliament House, emerged by a back door across the intervening space and climbed a dizzy set of steps to find myself in the Sheriff court ready to plead whatever cause I was called upon to plead, and the contiguity of the buildings has been of great benefit. In order to put a new library on the vacant space of ground that I have described, it was necessary to remove the sheriff court house. That has become another determining factor in this controversy, and it has received a weight which again I think is undue and unwarranted. In order to get rid of the sheriff court house, provision has to be made for it somewhere else.
As was stated in evidence by one of the minority of the town council, who favour the project set forth in this Bill, no one would ever wish to move the sheriff court house
at all but for the fact that it was wanted by the library trustees as the site of the new building. Treasurer Harvey was asked before the Commission, "Do you agree that there would be no question of removing the sheriff court from its present site unless the National Library trustees had cast covetous eyes on the site?" He answered, "That is apparent to everyone. It is quite true." Accordingly, although it is also true that certain remedial measures are necessary to put the sheriff court house into a state of proper repair, at a cost of £20,000, there is no necessity, from the point of view of administering justice in the sheriff court, to shift it from its present site.
May I remind hon. Members who are not so familiar with Edinburgh as the rest of us what the situation of these various places is. That famous street which has been given the name of the Royal Mile, rising along the ridge from Holyrood up to the castle, is intersected at three-fourths of its length by the avenue which I have described as the George IV Bridge. This ridge rising from Holyrood to the castle descends very steeply on both sides, on the north side to Princes Street and on the south side to Cowgate and the Grass Market. As you come near the place where the George IV Bridge intersects it, three-quarters of the way up, you pass in succession St. Giles's Cathedral, the Market Cross, with the Parliament House buildings behind, and thereafter the Signet Library and the county buildings of Midlothian. These have behind them this steeply dropping area which is at present free from buildings. You turn round a corner and you find on your left this sheriff court house. It is a comparatively modern building built by an architect of considerable repute of the name of Bryce, whose work evidently so impressed the Commissioners who sat on this case that they recommended that the facade of it should be incorporated in any new building of the sheriff court that might be placed on a new site.
The history of this question becomes rather curious at this point. The trustees, anxious to build upon the site that I have described, asked: Where are we going to put the sheriff court if we occupy this site? It was suggested that, the site on Calton Hill which used to be occupied by the gaol had
been cleared, and was the place to put it. Accordingly, designs were drawn by the Office of Works for putting a new sheriff court house on the site of Calton gaol. Immediately there arose an uproar in Edinburgh, and one can quite understand it. This was putting the sheriff court house at a long distance from the court of session and creating an impediment in the ordinary case with which it was possible to move from one court to the other. The result was that the theory of putting the sheriff court house on Calton Hill was defeated by public opinion. Where was it to be put? Some other site had to be found near the law courts, and there was found what is described in all the proceedings as the island site, which lies slightly north of the entrance to the George IV Bridge and looks out upon Princes Street, a site which is covered by a considerable amount of buildings—shops on the lower floors and houses in the upper parts.
Then a difficulty arose about the question of costs. So eager, apparently, was the last Government to aid in the matter of getting this site cleared of the sheriff court house and a new site found for that building, that they became most generous in their offers. They agreed, although it would have been the business of the Sheriff Court Commissioners to find at least half the expense, to take practically the whole of the burden of the cost. The island sits is to cost £75,000. The Government are going to provide £50,000 of that sum, £10,000 is to be found by the Sheriff Court Commissioners, who ought to have been providing half the cost, which they would have levied upon Edinburgh and Midlothian, and £15,000 is to be provided by the town, which gets some easier accesses to one of the streets which is near the island site.
The generosity of the Government did not finish there. They also agreed, although half of this again would have had to be borne by the Sheriff Court Commissioners, to provide £100,000 for the building of the new sheriff court. That is to say, the Government were going to provide £150,000 for no other purpose than shifting the sheriff court from a place where it is perfectly adequately provided with accommodation and where it suits everyone, to a
place where at present nobody wants it. I am inclined to think, although I am not an expert, that some re-arrangement of the accommodation would do all that is required, and apparently that is the view of the treasurer of Edinburgh, who says that, but for the desire of the Commissioners to obtain this new site for the library, no one would have thought of shifting the sheriff court. Accordingly, £20,000 would have been enough to put the sheriff court into a good state of repair, and an extra £130,000 is to be expended unnecessarily to remove a perfectly good building from one place co another 200 yards away, and in the meantime all the tenants of the houses and shops on the island site are to be dispossessed and a considerable amount of trouble created. It seems to me that something very formidable has to be stated in order to justify manoeuvres of this kind.
When you have done all this—this is really the gravamen of the situation—and when you have shifted the sheriff court, at all this expense to the Government, have you really the kind of site for the new library that you wish? Let us keep well in mind that we are not legislating merely for to-day or tomorrow. A national library is a great institution, with what we call in Scotland a great tract of future time in front of it. To a national library a hundred years is as yesterday, or as a watch in the night, and you must be contriving something that is going to last, as far as you can see, for centuries. Look at many of the buildings in Edinburgh, still beautiful and still adequate to all purposes and a joy to those who reflect on what the great architects of the past have done. For this library you really ought to demand the finest site that it is possible to obtain. In a place like Edinburgh the national library ought to be a great feature of the communal life of the city and a decoration and an embellishment to its already famous beauty.
Let us consider this place where it is proposed to be built. It is a situation that is endeared to me by many associations, but it is not the kind of place that you would select for a great new national building. It slopes away very steeply from the edge of the ridge which forms the High Street of Edinburgh, and
it is in a very constricted place. To build a library upon that piece of ground would mean a great many flights. Its approach from the outside would be from the George IV Bridge, which stands high above the ground upon which the library will be built. One of the things that is said about the new project is that there will be available to it a great deal of the storage accommodation which exists in the old library. I put it to the House: Is that the way you would go about designing a great institution like this? Would you attempt to accommodate yourself to a particular system of storage and constrict all your designs in order to be able to work these into your scheme? Would you not, as a matter of course, try rather to fashion something great and big and bold and convenient and efficient?
8.0 p.m.
I have fortified myself—because there is no reason why you should take my opinion about a matter of this kind—by the evidence given by one of the most distinguished librarians in this country, if not in Europe, that of Mr. Stanley Jast. He says of the modern library, that the theories of construction and layout have been revolutionised in the last 30 years, and that a modern library should be built upon an open site, with spare land for extension but no considerable changes of level, and with as few limiting conditions as possible. This is certainly not an open site, and is one of the steepest sites on which you could attempt to accommodate yourself. So far from being free from limitations, consider its size. In the first place, it is banked up against the George IV Bridge which rises like a huge structure out of this slope. It is bounded on the lower side by the Cowgate, which is thronged with tenements. It has upon the upper side the buildings of the County of Midlothian and of the Library of the Writers to the Signet and the Parliament House. Accordingly, it is shut in on all sides instead of having that freedom of expansion which you would provide in any case for a national library.
Mr. Jast goes on to lay down one or two other conditions to which, I hope, the House will forgive me referring. He says that you must, in a modern library, have a good form of arrangement and that you ought to have a centre from which all the main rooms radiate so as to make
very easy access for quickness and efficiency in bringing books to people who require them. As far as this property is concerned, it is obvious that it at once fails because one of the sources of our storage is in the old building of the present Advocates' Library, which can only be reached from the new library, when it is built, by a series of indirect passages. Accordingly, you cannot fancy that such a scheme as that conforms to the desideratum which this great librarian lays down. He points out that the trustees' plan shows only one reading room of very moderate size and a few small studies. That seems to indicate that, instead of tile library being a library for the nation, it is to be a library for a comparatively few students. I should have thought that the plan of a national library would be somewhat different from that. He also points out that it is necessary to have scientific ventilation and a steady temperature. How can you do that in a building which is to be connected by passages with storage accommodation in another old building which has certainly no modern contrivances which anybody could discover.
He directs particular attention to the question of fires. You want your library to be safe from fire. It is true that you can make it a fireproof building, but you cannot make it fireproof to the influences of buildings round about. As I have told the House, the old library of the Parliament House has no modern contrivances at all. It is not suited to conditions which arise in modern communities, although it has mercifully been preserved from any fire. But if anything happened there in connection with the new library it would be disastrous. On the site is the George IV Bridge, and under its archway, I believe, there is a certain bedding manufacturing operation going on which does not seem likely to be a very good associate for a library close by. Books are subject to the influence of water used to put out a fire. Nothing can be worse for a library if it should be necessary to pour water upon the library books.
I have, I am afraid, taken too long to tell the House about these various considerations, but we should require to be very certain about this question before we decide to cast our votes in favour of the scheme which is before us. It may be asked, and certainly rightfully asked:
Where would you propose to go? What other site do you suggest? I am not sure that I am obliged to answer that question, or, at least, obliged to give a satisfactory answer upon it, because it is obvious that I cannot prove anything about any other sites which I may suggest, and nobody can say, on my ipse dixit, whether they would be good sites or not. But if it is put as a challenge to me that this is the only site which can be found, I think that in those circumstances I shall be entitled to say where, as it appears to me, you could find more suitable sites in Edinburgh. I think, in the first place, of the Calton Hill site which has been cleared of the gaol and which was offered for the purposes of the sheriff court. There is no disadvantage in the library being there. It is a site of 3½ acres, all cleared, and you are in a position to put up a building worthy of Edinburgh and worthy of a national library on that site. In addition, it is Crown property and costs you nothing, which in these days is a matter of considerable moment. As far as making a fine piece of architecture is concerned, you will see at once what it would be upon an open site like that as compared with the one which I have been describing.
There is another site which has been suggested. It may be that it is subject to some of the difficulties of the one which I have been criticising, but at any rate it would give a larger area. I am not going into the details. There is a lot of controversy about it. It is a site lower down the High Street, just opposite the municipal buildings, close by the Market Cross, and it is the site at which the police headquarters are at present located. The police headquarters were condemned some 20 years ago by the town council, which proposed to build new headquarters. This has not been done, and the old headquarters still stand. There has been great talk as to whether it would be a disadvantage to this, that and the other interest. I am not going into this question to-night. At any rate, it is a site which is worth considering.
One of the matters which I wish to bring before the House is that the Commission which passed this Order regarded itself as being precluded from discussing alternative sites. It would not allow any evidence to be laid upon alternative sites. It said: "We are confined to considering whether this sheriff court should be
removed from this one place to this other place, and we are not concerned with discussing the question as to the best place to put the national library at all. It is sufficient for us that under the terms of the Order the sheriff court house shall be moved in order to leave a free site for the National Library, and the only question for us is whether that will be a suitable site. We are not allowed to consider any other." That is the view which they took of their duties, and probably they were right. I believe that there was some mention made of the police headquarters' site, but it was not discussed or gone into. I do not ask the House to-night to go into it, because obviously in the absence of appropriate evidence we are not in a position to say whether such a site would be convenient or not. I only mention alternative sites in case anybody should say: "But there is no available alternative." I say that at least there are some sites which deserve consideration, and, in particular, I think, the Calton Hill site deserves very serious consideration.
There is another matter which, again, is of intense importance. Sir Alexander Grant has made a gift of £100,000 for the building of this library upon the particular site sanctioned by this Order. I have no doubt that you will be told to-night by the Solicitor-General that he is authorised to say that Sir Alexander Grant will not make his gift for any other site. Of course, it becomes a, very serious matter when we are considering expense. At the same time I do not think that it should weigh too much. I do not think that the House of Commons should allow itself to be committed to an inadequate site for a great national institution simply because of this gift of £100,000. There is another thing which presses itself upon me. I have no doubt that Sir Alexander Grant when he gives this authority to the Solicitor-General means exactly what he says and intends to carry it out, but I find it a little difficult to believe that he would persist in such an attitude from all that we know of him. He has been one of the most generous benefactors in Scotland in all public matters. I am sure that the gift of £100,000 is made because of a desire to have an adequate national library. If the House of Commons should take the view
that it would be better to put it somewhere else, he is certainly entitled, of course, to withdraw the £100,000, especially since he has given us due notice of it; but at the same time I hope that it is a view which would not be persisted in to the end. I hope that his benefactions will be continued where-ever the House of Commons may think that it will be appropriate to establish a site
I have dealt with the utilitarian side of this question, but there is another side. There are some of us
Who gang nae mair where aince we gaed
By Brunston Fairmileheid or Braid And far frae Kirk and Tron"—
but nevertheless have a supreme anxiety in regard to any building which we erect in our time, that it should be worthy of the city which is endeared to us as the romantic centre of the history of our country and whose beauty has cast for ever a spell of enchantment around our hearts. It is because we believe that a great opportunity is being sacrificed that we are here opposing this Measure. It is because we believe that the project embraced in the Bill is a makeshift and a stopgap, that it does not meet either the primary purpose of a national library nor yet is sufficient, in the form and situation in which it is to be placed, to express the spirit of a people who would wish to create a worthy temple to the learning which has done so much for them, that we are now taking part in an opposition which it would have been very much more congenial for us to avoid.

The SOLICITOR - GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Normand): The only regret which I have in rising to ask the House to support this Pill is that I should so unexpectedly find myself opposed to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). My right hon. Friend will believe me when I say that I, no less than he, have the interests and honour not only of Scotland but of the Capital of Scotland at heart on this question of the National Library. The Trustees of the National Library, when they were appointed in 1925, were appointed under an Act of Parliament then recently passed, which contemplated that one of their very first and most essential tasks would be to select a site for the new National Library, then first created.
I had the honour of being one of the original trustees appointed under that Act, and I am still one of that trust body. It was further my fortune to be the convener of the very committee which had to consider, and did consider with great anxiety and care, the question which is now under discussion in the House.
The National Library Trustees are a large body, and they appointed a committee to deal with this matter. It is only right that the House should know what was the personnel of that committee, and to judge whether they were qualified to deal with the question. The principal member of the committee was the chairman of the trustees, Sir Herbert Maxwell, a man universally honoured in Scotland, the doyen of Scottish men of Letters and, I should have thought, beyond all challenge, qualified to consider a matter in which Letters, the amenity of Edinburgh and the honour of Scotland were concerned. Another member of the committee was Sir Hew Dalrymple, who has long been associated with the National Gallery of Scotland, and whose capacity for considering such matters as the amenity of the Capital and the suitability of any site for the National Library could hardly be exceeded. Then there was Dr. Resit, Principal of Glasgow University, who was a Historiographer-Royal of Scotland, Professor of Scottish History and Literature of Glasgow University, and now its Principal, himself a past President of the Librarians' Association of Great Britain, and a great librarian, formerly in the University of Oxford. There was Mr. Cunningham, the representative of Glasgow University, the librarian of that University, and a man of great experience in all questions connected with the Library. There was Professor Grierson, the representative of Edinburgh University, with great experience of libraries and repositories of research, such as this Library is, in every part of the world. There was Professor Baxter, an eminent ecclesiastical historian, of St. Andrews University, Dr. James Maclehose and Lord President Clyde.
I need hardly say that these men addressed themselves to their task, the greatness of which they appreciated and recognised, with the conscientious endeavour that when they had performed their task Scotland would be possessed
of a National Library as fit as is the British Museum, or the National Library of France, or the Welsh National Library to play as great a role in the culture of Scotland as have any of these other libraries in their own countries. They took one and a-half years of deliberation before they arrived at a conclusion. They had before them the most ample material. They had the survey which had been made by the Director of Public Works and by the principal architect of the Office of Works in Scotland, of the whole of that part of the quadri-lateral which the right hon. and learned Member has described. It consists of a site in Central Edinburgh bounded on the north by the High Street, on the south by Chambers Street, on the east by the bridges and on the west by the George IV. Bridge. They had plans which had been made by Sir Frank Baines, the Director of the Office of Works, and also plans made by Sir Patrick Geddes and Mr. Mears, both eminent town planners of great experience, who had designed a site for the National Library on the very site which the National Library trustees ultimately selected. They had also reports from the Office of Works, with their own advisers.
They were advised throughout by the leading librarians of this country, and particularly I wish to pay tribute to the very great help given to the National Library Trustees by Sir Arthur Cowley, then of the Bodleian Library, and the librarians of the National Library of Wales and the British Museum. They paid visits to Aberystwyth, where is situated the most modern of the great National Libraries and repositories of research in the world. They had the most expert advice available, and, of course, in their own officials they had highly distinguished and experienced librarians. Moreover, among the trustees there were, as I have said, men like Dr. Rait and Mr. Cunningham, who were well acquainted with the problems that faced us, and which had been solved elsewhere. After one and a-half years deliberation the Trustees reached the conclusion that a building on the site of present sheriff court was the best possible solution of the library problem, and in the summer of 1927 they reported to His Majesty's Government, when my right hon. Friend the present Minister of
Agriculture was Secretary of State for Scotland.
They were directed by His Majesty's Government that the case must be considered by the Royal Commission upon Museums and Galleries which was then sitting. The Royal Commission sent a Scottish committee of the Royal Commission to Edinburgh, which sat in Edinburgh for several days. It took evidence and examined not only the present buildings of the library, but the sheriff court house and the surrounding property. It had before it a report made by Sir Frank Baines of the surrounding property and the possible sites in the neighbourhood. After it had considered all the evidence the Royal Commission reported unanimously that the scheme which recommended itself to the governing body, that is the scheme now before the House, should be put in hand at the earliest possible moment. They added:
The scheme would provide the National Library of Scotland with a building both dignified in appearance and effective in its capacity and amenities from the standpoint of the public.
Accordingly, as early as 1928 we had two disinterested and independent inquiries both reaching the conclusion that this was a suitable and effective site for the National Library, providing any architect entrusted with the preparation of the designs with an opportunity for creating a great public building. With that report before them the Government of that date authorised the acceptance by the National Library Trustees of the very magnificent gift by Sir Alexander Grant of £100,000 to provide for a, building upon that site. That offer was first made in November, 1927, when Sir Alexander Grant, who was himself a nominated Member of the National Library Trustees, had been informed of the decision taken by the National Library Trustees, had seen the trial plans and was fully in-informed of the conditions under which the building would be carried out. In July of that year the decision of the National Library Trustees, the favourable decision of the Government of that day and the report of the Royal Commission were published, and were received with unanimous applause by the entire Press of Scotland. There was no dissentient voice; and to this day I claim that the Press of Scotland as a whole is favourable to the scheme. It is true that the
"Scotsman" has gone back on its original opinion. I do not deny that, but other papers like the "Glasgow Herald," which is familiar to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead have consistently maintained that this is the best of all the practicable solutions and should be put in hand without further delay. In any case the "Edinburgh Evening News," which I suppose reaches almost every home in Edinburgh, has strongly supported it, and within the last week has appeared with two articles strongly urging that there should be no further delay in this essential embellishment of the City of Edinburgh.
The right hon. and learned Member speaks of public opinion. Let it be remembered that the trustees who reached this decision are the representatives of other bodies. There are representatives of the four universities of Scotland, representatives of the Convention of Royal Burghs, and representatives of the Association of County Councils. With one exception every one of these representatives has faced an election since the decision was reached, and every one has been re-elected as a trustee by his constituent body. Where are you to look, on a matter of this kind, for public opinion which is more authoritative and more deserving of attention than to representatives of the four universities, the Convention of Royal Burghs and the Association of County Councils? That is not all. The trustees are unanimous on this subject. They reached their conclusions unanimously, and they are unanimous to-day. It is true that for a brief period before the last inquiry was held the present Lord Provost of Edinburgh, not his predecessor, was in favour of another solution, but he is now anxious that this Bill should be passed and that the work should be taken in hand and pushed through to a conclusion as early as possible. Therefore, this Bill is presented with the unanimous consent of all the trustees.
It was necessary after that conclusion had been reached that ground should be acquired in order to provide a site for a new sheriff court; and that is the genesis of this Bill. A Bill was framed in the year 1930, and the late Government insisted that one of the conditions should be that the National Library should be built on the site of the present sheriff court when that site was vacated. The
right hon. and learned Member for Hill head says that the town council of Edinburgh are not in favour of their own Bill. I do not know how that is to be reconciled with the fact that twice they unanimously passed resolutions in favour of the promotion of this scheme before the Bill came before a Committee of Parliament. And since the Bill came before a Committee of this House, and was unanimously approved by that Committee, they have appointed a committee, the members of which I have seen to-day, unanimously authorising them to do their utmost to secure the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I say that this Bill comes before this House unanimously supported by a body of men whose competence cannot be denied, namely, the National Library Trustees, unanimously supported by the town council of the city of Edinburgh, approved by a Royal Commission and by two successive Governments in 1928 and 1931, and I should doubt whether any other private Bill has ever come before this House with such credentials.
8.30 p.m.
As to the procedure before the Committee of Parliament which approved the Bill during last summer, the proceedings lasted five days. We are here discussing it to-night for two hours. Surely they were competent to form an opinion. They had a far better opportunity of forming an opinion, after considering the whole of the evidence, than any hon. Member can have now. They examined the building, just as the Royal Commission had done, and the site of the National Library and the proposed site of the sheriff court, and they speedliy reached their conclusion. It is suggested that we have not behind us the expert opinion of librarians. May I remind the House of some of those whose opinions we took? We were in close touch with a similar question connected with the Bodleian Library, and those concerned with that library hold the same opinions as we do, and it will be remembered that their report was framed after investigating library conditions in every civilised country in the world. They reached the same conclusion as we did, that you should not attempt the almost impossible task of transferring a library containing 800,000 volumes to a new site, sterilising the library for an unknown period during the process of transfer, and
that by far the best method of dealing with the problem was the method of expansion on the existing site. After the evidence was heard and the decision taken, the official organ of the Library Associations of Great Britain, in August, 1931, published its considered view upon the matter, and this is what it said. I invite the attention of those who say that library opinion is against the National Library Trustees to this publication. It says:
It took the Commission, we believe, exactly a quarter of an hour to decide the merits of the case. A body of national librarians or trustees of national libraries would have taken less time. It is morally certain that if the controversy had only come before any body of experienced and judicial men that an end would be made to the elaborate tissue of misrepresentations to which the trustees have been subjected for the past year. As it was, let us repeat that the sheriff court site is a thoroughly good site for which the trustees had not the smallest need to apologise.
I, at any rate, am not here to apologise for my co-trustees for the decision they have taken. It is said that we are going to sacrifice the sheriff court needlessly. What is the position of the sheriff court in Edinburgh? In the year 1912 the then Sheriff of the Lothians and Peebles reported that the sheriff court was out of date and that it was necessary two new court rooms should be added. His successor in 1922 reported to the same effect. The present holder of that distinguished office in a sworn testimony before the Royal Commission—and this is the sworn testimony of the man who knows—last year said that the project of spending £20,000 in order to bring the sheriff court up to date was money thrown away; there was not within the four walls of that building sufficient accommodation to meet present day requirements.
In that he was fully borne out by the first report of Sir Frank Baines in 1924, who said that the expenditure of £20,000 would not suffice to bring the sheriff court up to the needs of the next decade.
He was supported by the architect to the Office of Works in Edinburgh, who said that no expenditure of money whatever would provide in the sheriff court building the necessary accommodation which was now required. The sheriff court building is a building which in any event the country must soon be forced to replace, or it must be content to have
the administration carried on in a building which the sheriff of the Lothians and Peebles has stated to be utterly unsuitable and undignified as a place in which justice can be carried out.
Now for a word about finance. What is the finance of this scheme? It is very simple. It is fair to take the sum of £150,000 as the cost of reinstating the sheriff court, and it is fair to add that to the cost of building this extension of the National Library, which is £177,000. Accordingly the total expenditure upon the whole scheme is £327,000. But of that only £227,000 is public money. The rest of it is to be found out of a very generous gift by Sir Alexander Grant. As has been said, that £100,000 is available for that site and for no other site. The result of the expenditure of that £227,000 of public money would he this: You would have a National Library valid for the next 50 years to begin with, accommodating all the readers that will go there and all the books -which will be stored there in the next 50 years, and you will also have a sherif court worthy of the Lothians and Peebles, worthy of the administration of justice within its walls, and satisfactory from the point of view of accommodation and decency, as the present sheriff court is not, and you will have a sheriff court in the closest proximity to the court of session.
What of the future? We are going to supply with this £227,000 that which, as I have said, will be valid and useful for the next 50 years. What after that? It is essential that the House should realise that this is only the first step of a building scheme for the National Library which the Trustees have considered upon trial plans. The second stage will provide for another 30 years, and the third stage for another 20 years. But we do not consider it necessary, nor would it be wise, to spend to-day the whole of the money for what will not be required for another 50 years. We shall do it by stages. There you have 100 years provided for, and when that 100 years is provided for there is still vacant Crown property adjacent for another 30 years at least. We are provided, therefore, without having to buy a single piece of ground in the neighbourhood of the National Library, for 130 years to come. Probably that is not enough for anyone
to look forward to in a changing world. But the National Library Trustees have not been content with that. We know that we can acquire property immediately to the east of it, and when we have acquired that, as we may 100 or 130 years hence, there is at least another 100 or 200 years ahead of that, and I believe that this House will not expect the National Library Trustees to look further into the future than that. No one can say that we have been shortsighted.
Have we made adequate accommodation for the readers who will come? Have we provided accommodation only for a mere handful of students? What is the position to-day? At present there are 8,000 readers' attendances per year at the National Library. We are going to provide for the next 50 years accommodation on a scale four times as great; we shall provide accommodation for at least 35,000 readers' attendances in a year. I have a very great admiration for the hand of anyone who describes that as a mere handful of students. I think that that is ample accommodation. Then when we proceed to the next stage, we shall still be able to provide further readers' accommodation. The Royal Commission was right when it said that the National Library Trustees had looked far enough into the future, that they had made adequate provision, and that they had given the architect the opportunity of designing a great public building well worthy of containing that magnificent collection of books and manuscripts formed by the Faculty of Advocates. If I were not, for other reasons, proud to belong to the profession I should be most proud to be one of those advocates for having performed that great service to my country of collecting one of the greatest libraries that the world knows.
My right hon. Friend mentioned those books which were retained by the Faculty. I am not surprised. The whole collection formed by the Faculty amounted to 800,000 volumes, on which they had spent many hundreds of thousands of pounds. They retain the tools of their trade, namely, the law library. But no one must suppose that the law library of the Faculty consists of modern text books or modern law reports. It consists of 45,000 volumes, many of them
unique, great numbers of them rare, and these volumes are the original sources of the history of Scotland; they are the original sources for the social and economic and political history of our country. No one has yet fully explored them. There are great collections of manuscripts. Under the present regime every one of those books is incorporated in the catalogue of the National Library of Scotland. Under the gift made by the Faculty they made it a condition that the books which they retained would be available for the general student who went to the National Library, provided they were not in actual use, and at this moment, if you go to the National Library and go to the catalogue which is now being formed, and which incidentally will be rendered useless if this Bill fails, you will pull out a drawer and find the books which are the property of the nation and those which are the property of the Faculty catalogued together. You will get the one as quickly as the other. How is that to be done if you separate these two libraries?
The right hon. Gentleman says, "But the Faculty will continue to do as they have done before." One of the great difficulties of the Faculty was the expense to which they were put in order to provide reading rooms, attendants and catalogues for those who came to the premises to study the National Library hooks. One of our difficulties is the heavy charge to which students are put in order to join the Faculty and provide for the library. Are you going to increase those charges and make it impossible for a young man without means to join that illustrious profession? How are these books to be made available if you separate the two collections and place them under different roofs? It becomes impracticable. Not only that, but there is housed under that same roof to-day that great collection formed by the writers to the signet, the Signet Library, and also that great collection formed by the Society of Solicitors of the Supreme Court. By the courtesy of these two bodies books which would not ordinarily be available in either the National Library or the Faculty Library are made available to those who wish to study them.
Considerations of that kind, among others, have influenced the National Library Trustees and after examining
with minute care every objection which has been advanced to it, they remain convinced that the scheme which they have put forward is the best possible scheme. My right hon. Friend says that it is not incumbent upon him to suggest an alternative scheme. I notice that he passed over that aspect of the matter somewhat hastily. He talked of Calton Hill and the police courts, but the former lies altogether outside the quarter where libraries are to be found in Edinburgh and the Architectural Association of Edinburgh who are opponents of the scheme have from first to last repudiated the notion of a library of this sort upon Calton Hill. Moreover, the people of Edinburgh hope yet to see the Calton Hill site utilised for Government buildings which at present are scattered inconveniently in different parts of Edinburgh. As to the other suggested scheme, what possible advantage is there in carrying 800,000 volumes from one end of the Law Courts to the other? The cost would be prodigious if you attempted to build a library on the east side of the Law Courts.
This at all events is a fair conclusion to be drawn—that the opposition to the scheme of the trustees is the opposition of a comparatively few people who are more divided among themselves than they would like to admit, and are far more hostile to one another than they are to the National Library Trustees. The architects agree with the trustees that the site must be somewhere in the centre of Edinburgh. Their principal witness repudiated the very site chosen by the Architectural Association. If this Bill fails we shall be in chaos. It is not a question between this site and some other site which is recommended by a responsible body of enlightened public opinion. It is a question between this site and a wholly indefinite site about which the opponents of the Bill would at once begin to dispute among themselves if the Bill failed to pass. I recommend the Bill to the House without qualification and without shrinking from the responsibility which I incur as a member of the National Library Trustees. I do so without any qualms of conscience and I appeal even now to those who have opposed the Bill to withdraw their opposition. This controversy has long become stale and has ceased to interest even the most curious readers of newspapers. I appeal
to the opponents of the Bill to allow it at least to die, and to unite with us in going forward to the fulfilment of a great national project in the completion of the National Library of Scotland.

Sir SAMUEL CHAPMAN: The House has been interested and delighted to hear two great speeches from two of our leading Scottish advocates. The House will now, I am afraid, have to listen for a few minutes to a very ordinary Member of Parliament who has not the advantages of these two hon. and learned Gentlemen, but who is trying to do his duty, as Mr. Speaker sometimes says in this House, in gathering the voices on this question. I say without hesitation, as the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said, that this controversy has ceased to interest the people of Scotland. Why has it ceased to interest them? The Solicitor-General who speaks with great charm has given us a list of the great men who are in favour of the trustee's plan, but, as an ordinary individual who knows Edinburgh very well, it strikes me as extraordinary that all these great and brainy people should have failed utterly to convince the people of Edinburgh that theirs is the right scheme. Outside the circle indicated by the Solicitor-General in his speech just now you cannot get a business man or ordinary citizen who is whole-heartedly in favour of the trustees' scheme.
Let me substantiate that statement. Reference has been made to the Merchant Company which in Edinburgh is little inferior to the Town Council. Indeed some of them think they are on a level with that body. The Master of the company is a very well-known gentleman, Mr. Gilbert Archer, who might be expected to know something about public opinion in Edinburgh. Mr. Archer when he gave evidence on this question said he represented the Merchant Company which had a membership of 600 of the leading merchants, bankers and traders of Edinburgh. The company, he said, had not confined itself to business matters, but had certain educational duties and had concerned itself with questions affecting the amenities of the city. Then a question was put to him which I may summarise as follows: "Your position is that you are not here as an architectural or a library expert, but that your company
feel that, if this proposal were rushed through an irreparable blunder would be made which future generations might regret." He said without hesitation, "Yes" in answer to that question.
There was also examined before that special commission the chairman of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce, a gentleman well known to us, Mr. J. R. Little. [Interruption.] He is not known as far away as Glamorganshire, perhaps, but in the city of Edinburgh he is, and he says:
The Chamber has a membership of 825, comprised of the leading business men in the city, with representatives of banking, accountancy, and finance.
Then the question is put to him:
Are you in a position to say that the members of your Chamber object to the demolition of the sheriff court building as being unnecessary and extravagant?
He says:
That is so.
And one which in the present state of the country would not be justified, is it not?
That is so.
There you are. What are ordinary Members of Parliament to do? All these great people, brought from all parts of the country, say, "Go on with it; it is all right," but the citizens of Edinburgh, according to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, have lost all interest in the question. I understood him to say that. Am I right in interpreting him as saying that?

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND: I said that the public no longer show an interest in it.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: Is not that an extraordinary thing for him to say?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN: I never said a word, but the hon. Member quoted Glamorganshire just now.

Sir S. CHAPMAN: I am sorry that I aroused the ire of an old friend. I would call attention to this remarkable admission by the chief advocate of the Bill, that the citizens of Edinburgh have lost all interest in the matter. Why have they? Because the whole question has been muddled. The sheriff court is one of the most substantial buildings in the city of Edinburgh, the pride of the citizens of Edinburgh, and a landmark in our architecture. I have been told over
and over again, in these very words, "It is a wicked thing to pull it down." There is a block of buildings opposite the Bank of Scotland known as the island site, a block of buildings in an excellent state of repair, which will last another 100 years, and everybody in Edinburgh says, "Why pull that down? It is a wicked thing to pull it down." Then below the Mercat Cross, between St. Giles and the Tron Church, there is a block of buildings which was erected about 100 years ago, after a great fire, and those buildings are now slums, an eyesore to anybody who loves Edinburgh. Walk up the High Street. There is nothing architectural or nice about it, but it is just degenerating into slums, and that side of the street is the same side as the Advocates' Library. The citizens of Edinburgh say, "Why pull down the sheriff court and this block of buildings, which may last another 100 years, and leave this same property, on which as an alternative suggestion this library can be built and the High Street beautified?" The whole thing has been so, unutterably muddled from beginning to end by a definite lead not being given and by the action of the town council. Let me just quote this:
At a meeting of the town council held on the 26th March, 1931, a motion condemning the proposed demolition of the sheriff court was brought forward, and this motion was passed by 43 votes to 17.
9.0 p.m.
Something has happened since then, and that is the great generosity of Sir Alexander Grant, which all Scotland applauds, but all Scotland, and Edinburgh in particular, laments that we cannot accept his generosity with open arms and say, "Go ahead; this is exactly what we want. We would like to accept your most generous gift, which is not the first, but we cannot do it." The Town Council of Edinburgh themselves, not so long ago, by 43 votes to 17 said, "Do not do away with the Sheriff Court." There have been all sorts of crosscurrents, and we have got ourselves into this hole, and the citizens of Edinburgh, according to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, have lost all interest in the question. That is how it stands. A great many people tell me, "Well, well, I suppose it will be passed. I suppose it will go through"; and then, in 40 years' time, they will say, "What fools they were in your generation." That is the position, so we think we must get this
question considered de novo. Then perhaps we shall have another eloquent speech from the Solicitor-General for Scotland, addressing, not the House of Commons, but the citizens of Edinburgh, and bringing forward a great plan, and the citizens will be only too delighted to follow his lead, but for the moment we say, "Hold your hands; we do not think it is the right thing to do."

Mr. GUY: We have just listened to a fine fighting speech by the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), but I do not think he has really made any serious attack on the formidable and convincing arguments submitted by the Solicitor-General for Scotland. We must all be agreed that we want to have the finest library for Scotland that we can get, but we must face realities. If we had unlimited money and a clear site available, we could put up a library that would be the finest possible. But if there was any suggestion to spend, say, £1,000,000 on a national library for Scotland at this stage, I, for one, would' strongly oppose it, because, although a national library is of importance, in this very constituency, which I have the honour to represent, you have these dreadful housing conditions to-day. Therefore, I think this problem must be regarded in a reasonable way, in the light of circumstances and of the necessity for economy, and remembering that there is need for the expenditure of money upon this other pressing question of housing.
To come back to the merits of the Bill, may I say a word upon the existing sheriff court? The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) said that it was a perfectly good building, but I wonder how many years it is since he visited the sheriff court in a professional capacity. I doubt very much if he has done so since before the War, and I can say, from personal experience, that the sheriff court is completely inadequate for the purposes it should serve. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has made that abundantly clear. It has been objected that the existing court might be put into a proper state of repair by the expenditure of some £20,000, but when that idea is examined it will appear to be almost ridiculous, because there is a need for two more court rooms in the sheriff court, and while they were being provided the ordinary work would be
brought to a standstill. Therefore, the only possible way of solving this problem of the sheriff court, which is a minor question compared with the National Library, but still is an important question, is to pick another site.
In the official scheme the island site is available, and that will serve all the purposes for a proper and suitable sheriff court and will satisfy the one condition which was stressed by the right hon. Member for Hillhead, that it will be adjacent to the Court of Sessions. A point which must be carefully borne in mind and which I impress on the House, is that the question of the best site fur the National Library should be solved n the first place by the trustees. The Act of 1925, which constituted the trustees of the National Library, placed the duty and responsibility for looking after the library and providing all the necessities of the library upon the trustees. It is for the objectors to make out the case against the trustees that they have failed in their duty. It is clear from the evidence referred to by the Solicitor-General that this attack upon the trustees has completely failed. The decision of the trustees has been justified in particular by the Royal Commission on Museums and by a Parliamentary Committee last year; they unanimously agreed that the decision of the trustees was a right and proper decision. In these circumstances, the House should be very careful about interfering with it.
May I mention the points that appeal to me as being strongly in favour of the Bill? If this scheme goes through and there is an extension to the existing library, it will save the existing storage which holds 800,000 volumes, whereas, if they go elsewhere and find another site, they will have to build accommodation not only for the future, but for all these 800,000 volumes. That would become a much more expensive scheme even if no consideration were given to the £100,000 from Sir Alexander Grant. Another point of considerable importance is that the scheme would retain the link between the National Library and the Faculty Library. That point has already been dealt with by the Solicitor-General.
There is another point which should thoroughly convince the House on the
financial issue. I do not propose to go into the question of the figures for or against, but when proper weight is given to the £100,000 given by Sir Alexander Grant, it is obvious that the official scheme is one which will be the most economical and worthy of the most serious consideration. The last point I wish to mention is the time factor. If the Bill is not read a Second time, the question will go back to the trustees, and there will be further delay. We have had far too much delay already. It will mean another inquiry and another Provisional Order, and nothing further will be done in the meantime to provide the much needed extension to the Library to house the books that are coming in every day. On the whole matter, I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading and to allow this most important scheme to proceed without delay.

Lord SCONE: I count myself very fortunate in being able to make my maiden speech to-night on a subject which is of such great importance, not merely to the citizens of Edinburgh, but to the whole of Scotland, although I fear that all Scotland has not been sufficiently awakened to the true meaning of what this Provisional Order implies. I hope that whatever this effort of mine may lack in eloquence may be atoned for in sincerity and convincingness. I would like to begin by directing the attention of the House to the position which Edinburgh holds among the capitals of the world. I do not suppose that any Member of the House will contradict me when I say that Edinburgh is universally acknowledged as one of the most beautiful cities, riot only in Europe but in the whole world. One commonly hears Edinburgh and Munich bracketed as the two most beautiful cities of Europe. I have been to Munich, and undoubtedly it is a very beautiful and magnificent city, but when compared with Edinburgh, it falls lamentably far behind.
When this point is appreciated, I do not think that it is too much to say that anything which will embellish or impair the beauties of Edinburgh needs to be very carefully considered. Edinburgh consists in essence of two portions, the old town and the new town. The new town was built for the most part at the end
of the 18th century, at a time when motor cars and even railway trains were undreamed of. In spite of that, so great was the forethought of those then responsible for the laying out of the new city, that the streets laid down then are adequate for the volume of traffic to-day, a volume which they could not possibly have foreseen. They did not look a few years ahead; they looked many centuries ahead, and I cannot help saying that I am amazed at the complacency with which the learned Solicitor-General said that it is quite unnecessary to look more than 100 years ahead in Scottish history. We have had a long and possibly chequered history in Scotland. In that history, 100 years is not a very long time, and, if our history lasts, as I hope it will, far into the future, and to use a phrase which the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) so aptly employed, goes far in the tract of future time, surely we cannot for a moment imagine that it is sufficient to think only 100 years ahead.
At the present time we hear a, great deal about town and country planning. We hear those of our ancestors who lived from 50 to 100 years ago abused for not thinking more of the future; and yet this Provisional Order proposes that we should not merely imitate the faults they have shown in the past but show ourselves less far-sighted than those who lived 150 years ago, to whose extraordinary depth of judgment we owe our modern city of Edinburgh. Those of us who are opposing this Order are not doing so in any narrow, obscurantist spirit. We do not definitely say that the present suggested site must be abandoned for good and all, but we do claim that nowhere near sufficient attention has been paid to possible alternative sites. We claim that the correct procedure would be to refer this matter back and to get a commission appointed with the widest possible terms of reference. No such commission has ever considered the subject, other inquiries having been sadly hampered by the terms of reference. When such a commission has reported we should know definitely what is the best site and how best to make use of it.
The Solicitor-General said it would be quite sufficient if the new building lasted, for its immediate purpose, for 50 years. There might be a little addition which
might last for another 30 years, on top of that a third addition lasting for 20 years, and a fourth for another 30 years; but what sort of building is our National Library going to be, and what credit is it going to reflect on Edinburgh and on the Scottish people, when some four or five architects have all added their ideas to the original building? I cannot imagine that Edinburgh would be in any way improved by such a building, which is bound to show the handicraft of its several creators. If such a view had been taken in the past, it is quite certain that those magnificent buildings of which we are so justly proud to-day could never have taken the form they have, and would not have been allowed to survive up to the present time. If in the past we had adopted this easy policy of only thinking ahead for a couple of generations, should we to-day have seen a single one of the buildings which are our pride throughout Scotland, throughout Britain and, indeed, throughout Europe? The answer must be emphatically "No." As regards alternative sites, we have heard Calton Hill brushed aside very lightly. I should want to hear a great deal more evidence before I felt convinced that Calton Hill was impracticable. I am not greatly taken with the alternative police court site, it is true, even if it has advantages which the Sheriff Court site lacks and fewer disadvantages.
We have heard very little about the financial side. The hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Guy) spoke somewhat wildly about £1,000,000. I do not think any scheme ever suggested was supposed to cost £1,000,000, or the half of it, but surely when we are dealing with a matter as important as this, even though we grant the need for the most urgent economy, it would be better to spend a little more money and get something really satisfactory than to spend a little less and get something which might be an eyesore rather than a credit. I listened very carefully to the eloquent speech of the Solicitor-General, and I have read with great care the effusions that have reached all Members, at least all Scottish Members, from both sides, and I have listened with equal care to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Hillhead and the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), and the conviction which has been
gradually forming in my mind, that this Provisional Order is a mistake, has been strengthened and magnified many times over.
It has been the old-established practice in the system of our Government that when a casting vote has to be exercised by a chairman it should be used in maintaining the status quo. The casting votes to-night are in the hands of those Members who do not represent Scottish constituencies, and who, with few exceptions, are by no means well versed in the matter before us. I would most earnestly appeal to them to carry out the traditional practice, and use their casting votes to maintain the status quo until this matter can be really properly threshed out by a Commission whose mandate will be in the widest possible terms, because I think it would be little short of disastrous if we should now erect in Edinburgh a building which, so far from being an added adornment to Edinburgh, might well be a discredit, and which, so far from enhancing the opinion which we hope posterity will have of our present generation, will make posterity think that in the last century we have learned nothing and forgotten nothing. I most emphatically support the rejection of this Provisional Order.

Mr. WELLWOOD JOHNSTON: I have one regret and one only after listening to the speech of the Noble Lord, and that is that such fluency and such cogency of arguments were not enlisted in support of this Measure. I am sure the House will be with me in congratulating the Noble Lord on what he has said, and in expressing the hope that he may soon be heard again within these walls. The opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill has been led by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). His views carry great weight in this House, and justly so, but while that is true as regards political, economic and financial questions I venture to remind the House that on this occasion we are upon different ground, and to suggesting that on a question like this his views are no more weighty than are those of us who have remained in closer touch with Scotland and with the capital of Scotland; for, thorough Scot though he is, and worthy representative of a Scottish constituency, he has none the less become something of what in football circles is
called with, just a trace of disparagement in the popular press of Scotland, an "Anglo-Scot." That generally means someone who, having been born and bred in the north to plain living and high thinking, has made, and acted upon, the discovery that in the softer and wealthier south a richer living may sometimes be obtained with less mental exertion. I am sorry that he is not here, but the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is an excellent example. I suggest that upon this question some of us are at least as closely in touch, or more closely in touch, with the actual facts as they exist in Scotland than the right hon. Gentleman, and that his views are necessarily, through the partial severance of his connection with Scotland gained to a large extent from newspapers and other publications.
I do not understand all the references which have been made, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir S. Chapman), to public opinion, the views of the citizens of Edinburgh, and so on. I think it was in Bagehot's "English Constitution" that I first learned that it is a mistake to think that Debates in this House are a waste of time, because they do not affect votes, seeing that all the while they are educating public opinion, and no doubt hon. Members have to be careful to remember their constituents when they are expressing views in this House. I do not care what views I express to-night, for my constituents and the public of Scotland are not the least interested in this question.
Ninety-nine per cent. of them have never heard of the National Library, and 999 out of every 1,000 have never been, will never go, or will ever want to go near it. It is sheer nonsense to say there is strong public feeling in opposition to this Bill. It may be said that informed opinion is against the proposal. It is a strange thing that informed opinion took two years to inform itself about the matter at all or to raise the first cheep of opposition. After all, what is the so-called informed opinion? Some disgruntled architect or editor of a newspaper, or the body called the Cockburn Association, which has been wrong every time. It argued that central poles for tramways would ruin Edinburgh, it opposed tooth and nail the proposal to
erect a public building at the foot of the Mount, and it opposed a structure which is now universally admitted to be in-offensive.
These are the quarters from which the opposition comes, and whether it is representative informed opinion or not, it certainly does not represent literary and academic opinion, and it is literary and academic opinion which surely matters in this connection, for they are literary and academic people who are going to use the library. I think the House should bear very much in mind that the opposition to these proposals does not come in the main from the people who will be the users of the National Library but comes, rather, partly from those who are inevitably opposed to everything and partly by those who want some grandiose building which can be proudly exhibited to visitors who have no particular interest whatever in its contents or in securing the best possible use of them by the people to whom they can be of value. The real problem is not of some magnificent architectural building, but it is to be able to utilise the library at the earliest possible moment and with the minimum of disturbance and interruption to work. If it is to be secured at the earliest possible moment, I am afraid in present circumstances it must be secured at the least. possible cost, The House will be very ill-advised to allow the National Library trustees to look a gift horse in the mouth. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) to talk about worthy temples. It is another thing to consider how the finances can be provided.
There are two other matters to which I should like to refer. First of all, it is apparent that there is no unanimity among the opponents of the proposal as to an alternative site. An important section of them agree that the library must be within a certain area which excludes the Calton Hill site, and they are forced therefore to plump for the Police Court site, but many of the objections which can be urged, and have been urged, against the Sheriff Court site are equally applicable to the Police Court site, and particularly the danger, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, of fire owing to the fact of not having an isolated
building. It has also been represented that the National Library on the Sheriff Court site means building on the top of a hole. The same applies to the Police Court site, and surely a good deep hole through a building upon a slope is the very thing which a copyright library needs, for it must have some storage for all the junk which inevitably accumulates—the leading articles of the "Scotsman," the works of Edgar Wallace and such things, which are far better buried, but which must be kept. If the library has a deep hole in which it can store them, so much the better. Certainly it is true that unless the library goes down deeply from the level of its main floor, it must either be a very poor building or occupy a very much larger area of ground.
9.30 p.m.
There is a final consideration, and that is something which has actuated me throughout. We know that the National Library trustees are a very distinguished body of men representing all sorts of interests in Scotland. They have been appointed to do the job, and if you appoint a body of eminently qualified men to carry out this work, surely the only thing is to let them do it in their own way, and trust them to carry out what you have given them to do, and not try to interfere with them at every turn? It cannot be said that this is something specially outside the ordinary administrative duties entrusted to the National Library trustees, for this problem was urgent when they were appointed. It was the consideration of the inadequacy of accommodation very largely which led the Faculty of Advocates to transfer the library. It was known when the trustees were appointed that this was the first and most important problem with which they would have to deal, and it was very much in their minds when they were appointed. In these circumstances, it cannot be said this is a problem with which they are not competent to deal.
Originally, it was said by the opponents of the present proposal—and this shows the misleading nature of the propaganda carried on against this proposal—that the trustees were certainly a very fine body eminently qualified, but that they had never really applied their minds to this, because their hands were tied from the beginning by the conditions of the gift of £100,000. Then it was said that the
trustees should investigate the whole problem for a year and a half, and make up their minds before it was proposed. Besides being an eminently qualified body appointed to do the job, which should therefore be left to them, let it be borne in mind that they were appointed not in any sense as an advisory body, but as an executive body, with power not only to examine, to consider and to recommend, but with power to turn their recommendations into effect. I beg the House not to stand in the way of letting these eminently suitable men, who know very much more about the problem than we can do, to carry out the work as they have decided to do it.

Sir PATRICK FORD: I have been brought upon my feet sooner than I intended this evening by the very interesting and amusing speech which one of our new Members has made. It was somewhat touching to find in the latter part of the speech that wonderful devotion to divine authority which is not so characteristic of him in his political or other utterances, or in his references to the right hon. Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne), or by implication to myself. I have moved in politics for some years longer than he has, and when he has had some years more experience, he will not so lightly belittle the intelligence of his fellow-subjects in Scotland as to say that 99 per cent. of them are not in the least interested in the subject. I am not one of those Anglo-Scots who have come south to leaven the loaf of English energy, for I still preserve my close association with Scotland. When the hon. Member talks about enlightened opinion, there are some of us who have very close connection with the Royal Academy of Scotland, and some experience of literature, law and learning. When we voice our views, we consider that we should have the same respect as one of our newest Members has for his views. It may suit the hon. Member to quote with such devotion the various Royal Commissions and Committees which he has mentioned, but I would say that it is just as easy to shepherd committees as to form public opinion. There have been certain people who had formed a definite idea of what they wanted carried out and they have acted with the highest motives. They have very adroitly and insistently
confirmed that opinion in those bodies which are not directly open to the pressure of public opinion. It is a mere travesty of justice to say that there was a real inquiry into all the merits of the site now proposed for the library when it is well known that the terms of reference to the Commission excluded inquiry upon almost every point. All this was pre-determined by the committee which had previously been dealing with the question.
Of course, I appreciate the generosity of Sir Alexander Grant not only for the money he gave but for his consideration for what had been done by the Faculty of Advocates. That, however, does not rule out another site which has been mentioned, and it does not rule out the possibility of adopting the site on Calton Hill. I have no conclusive proof that we can get anything like the accommodation adequately to deal with the needs of a real national library on the site approved by the trustees. We are told that the scheme will provide accommodation for 400 additional readers, but there seems to be some discrepancy as to what forms proper reading space as compared with libraries all over the country. This House must not when a Provisional Order has been secured for Scotland, forego the right of those who disagree with it to come back to this House, and, if they can bring a prima facie case against it, that is as much their right as the right of free speech.
We have been told something about the delay which has occurred in taking this Bill. In regard to this Measure no one has shown more public spirit than the Prime Minister, and it has been a great grief to him and to us that after putting off the Bill to give him that opportunity that he is precluded from speaking upon it. On these questions, I am almost certain that both the Prime Minister and Sir Alexander Grant would be willing to meet the opinion of Scotland. We must not forget that for all time we are building a worthy national library, and we are building it for a beautiful city, a city with a great historic past and rich in all the annals which go to make up a great city and the worthy capital of a great country. We hear some talk of the seriousness of a delay of four years, but what is a few years' delay in the case of a city that
sits enshrined upon its hills looking over the hills of Fife and the distant mountains, immemorial in its age and immortal in its youth. In this matter ret us take no rash steps. Let us refuse the Second Reading of this Bill and have an authoritative inquiry that will do justice to our great city, the capital of a great nation.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Sir Archibald Sinclair): The subject which we are discussing to-night is indeed a worthy theme for the eloquence of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) who has just spoken. There have been other speeches of great interest and eloquence on the subject, of which it is only fitting that I should mention the maiden speech delivered by the Noble Lord the Member for Perth (Lord Scone), and we shall look forward with interest to any further contribution by him to our Debates. The subject which we are discussing to-night is of great importance to the City of Edinburgh, and for that reason alone it is a question which deeply concerns Scotsmen and Scotswomen. We all feel that we have our share in the common heritage of Scotland, which, as the Noble Lord the Member for Perth has said, possesses the most beautiful and most romantic capital of any country in the world. We are, moreover, discussing the question of providing a national library not for Edinburgh only hut for all Scotland and not only Scottish Members but English Members have a direct responsibility for the granting of the money involved in this Bill, amounting to £100,000.
Nevertheless, it is not for me, and I do not propose to-night, to enter into the merits of this issue, which have been so eloquently discussed by previous speakers. I intervene only to satisfy what I am sure will be the natural requirement of the House, that I should state the views of the Government on this Bill. I find, on an examination of previous cases in which controversy has arisen in the House on Scottish Private Bills or Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, that, while it has not been the practice for the Government to exercise any form of pressure on Members of the House, Ministers of the Crown, apart from any personal opinion or predilection or interest in the matter at issue, have submitted to the
House as a general principle that we should respect the considered verdicts of our local legislation committee and of the commissioners appointed under our Provisional Order procedure, and that we should not upset or disturb their verdicts except on the most cogent grounds. With that view I am in whole-hearted agreement.
The merits of this project have been exhaustively examined by the Board of Trustees for the Library, by the Royal Commission on Museums and Galleries, and by the commissioners appointed under our Provisional Order procedure, who, after a most exhaustive hearing last summer, decided unanimously that this was a project of which they could approve; and it is my submission to the House that it is to that verdict rather than to the eloquent speeches which we have heard to-night from both sides—that verdict of those men who, as my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland pointed out, gave five days to the discussion of this project, to the hearing of witnesses, and to the examination of plans—it is to that verdict, I feel sure, that hon. Members will attach weight when they vote to-night.
It is true that in this particular case the Government has a measure of responsibility such as a Government seldom has when a Private Bill or Confirmation Order is under discussion. The Government have not felt that the circumstances justify a departure from the usual established procedure as regards their intervention in this Debate; but, in view not only of our financial commitments, which we inherited from our predecessors and which they inherited from their predecessors, but of the authority which was given by the Government to the Trustees of the National Library in 1928 to accept Sir Alexander Grant's gift, with the conditions attached to that gift, the responsibility of the Government is more involved in this Measure than in the ordinary Private Measure, and it does, I think, justify me in urging, more strongly than I should normally feel it my duty to do, the view that the House should not reverse a decision which has been reached after so much and such thorough examination.
This House has delegated its authority in this matter to Commissioners, who have done their work so well that I think
that we of the parent body may well envy their comparative immunity from criticism. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Home) referred, in answer to an interruption, to the fact that this Library could be erected wherever the House of Commons decides to establish this great institution. It is my submission to the House to-night that the House of Commons is not the right body to decide where this great institution should be erected. We have had the opinions of the Board of Trustees, of the Royal Commission on Museums and Galleries—who were not limited, as some speakers have suggested, in their terms of reference—and we have, in addition, the opinion arrived at, after much careful examination and discussion extending over five days, by our own Commissioners. If we do not trust the Commissioners, we should alter the procedure.
This question of the authority which we delegate to the Commissioners, and of how far the House should call it in question, has been raised many times before. Of course I do not for a moment dispute the absolute right of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh and other opponents of this Measure to come to the House and raise the matter here, but nevertheless we have an absolute right to take the line that, unless very cogent reasons are advanced, or unless some new facts are brought forward which did not come into the purview of the Commissioners, we ought to uphold their decision.
In the discussion on the Arizona Copper Bill, the then Lord Advocate, Mr. Graham Murray, now Lord Dunedin, said that the whole idea of the Private Bill procedure was that of devolution, and that the whole spirit of the speech to which he was replying was that the local inquiry was to be overruled by the House of Commons. Mr. Thomas Shaw, now Lord Craigmyle, who was also subsequently Lord Advocate, speaking in the same Debate, expressed the same opinion even more emphatically; and Mr. Robert Munro, now Lord Alness, when Secretary of State for Scotland, in the discussion on another Private Bill, said that, unless a Member of the House, with a full sense of responsibility, having read and pondered over the evidence, had reached the firm conviction that a
different conclusion should have been arrived at by the Committee upon that evidence, he was not entitled to disturb their decision; while in 1907 the House of Commons rejected a Motion for the rehearing of a case in which the Government had no particular concern, and which had been decided only by the casting vote of the Chairman. Let us, then, to-night uphold that principle of delegation and devolution. To do otherwise, when the proposal under discussion has been unanimously approved, not only by the Commissioners, but by the Board of Trustees and by the Royal Commission on Museums and Galleries, and when the Measure involves a considerable degree of Government responsibility, would be a grave and far-reaching departure from the principle which this House has on similar occasions in the past upheld, and one which could not fail to affect the whole machinery of our Private Bill legislation.

Sir R. HORNE: I propose, with the leave of the House, to withdraw the Amendment which I have moved, but I hope the House will allow me to say a word or two in explanation. I am responding to what is the obvious sense of the majority of the Members here—I will not say any considerable majority, but I think a majority—and also to the very urgent appeal which was made to us by the Solicitor-General for Scotland at the end of his speech. I am also moved by the considerations which the Secretary of State for Scotland has put before the House in regard to the effect upon Private Bill legislation of reversals by the House, which, of course, ought not to be sanctioned unless upon the strongest grounds.
I would like to say, however, that, so far as I am concerned, and I think so far as concerns everyone who has spoken in opposition to this Measure, we have been influenced by no propaganda of any sort Whatsoever. We do not belong to any cliques; we have taken no sides; but we have been expressing what in our hearts is a completely earnest and honest conviction; and, while that view does not seem likely to prevail with the House, we nevertheless hold it not the less firmly. We defer to the position which has been taken up by the Government, and the evidence of the difficulties which might be occasioned by the reversal of the decision of one of our Par-
liamentary Committees. But, none the less, we hope it will be recognised that we have performed some service in ventilating the topic, and I hope everyone will leave this branch of our business with the feeling that we Scottish Members are particularly anxious to conserve our interests in Scotland and to do the best we can for our country.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. R. W. SMITH: On a point of Order. I have risen several times—

Mr. SPEAKER: The Amendment has been withdrawn.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and ordered to be considered To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Question again proposed.

Mr. PICKERING: When I was speaking some time ago I found I had landed myself into Manchuria whereas I had intended to remain a little longer in Japan. I should like to say, while I was living in a northern province of Japan, how very happy my lot was among those people, whom I found invariably courteous and superlatively honest. I also discovered that they were in thought and deed the most peaceful people it has been my lot to live among. Everywhere I went I found the name of England greatly respected. I was very proud to be an Englishman in Japan, because, to all classes of Japanese, to be an Englishman meant to be almost the best man in this world, and they looked to England to give a lead in doing the right thing in all circumstances. So, because of this feeling of admiration that the Japanese have towards England, and this dependence on England and English opinion, I feel that I must speak on their behalf at this juncture. I am not speaking as a partisan in the ordinary sense of putting the pros and cons in any adventitious sort of way to serve some partisan purpose. I am speaking rather as feeling myself one of the Japanese themselves, conscious alike of their weaknesses and their strength. It
is in that sense that I will speak. I do not speak with any animus towards China. From living among the Japanese themselves I have been led to regard China and Japan as inseparably connected and committed to a common destiny. That is the feeling of the Japanese themselves and the feeling that I have drawn from them. Certain portions of the Chinese stock are far more like the Japanese than they are like other portions of the Chinese stock, and racial, cultural and economic considerations alike demand that these two nations shall always be mutually dependent upon each other.
10.0 p.m.
I am speaking because I hope that what I say will help towards a fruitful peace between China and Japan, and I feel that all Westerners are intimately concerned in the destiny of Japan and China, because to a very great extent we are responsible for the present situation. Only 80 years or so ago Japan was a hermit nation, a peaceful nation, content to go on living in that way, when her seclusion was roughly broken into by the Western Powers, and then she was faced with a choice of one of two alternatives. Either she must sacrifice her sovereignty and submit to foreign exploitation or she must make herself a great Power in approved foreign style. Of course, I cannot go into details, but I am convinced that no small nation has ever achieved Imperial greatness so heroically and so honourably as Japan has done, and never has any progressive nation, so soon as its powers became obvious, been subjected to so much discouragement, and even at times suffered so much from betrayal, as Japan has done at the hands of other great Powers. I ask hon. Members, especially hon. Members opposite, in their righteous enthusiasm, which I to a great extent share, for an ideal world, not to segregate Japan from all the other great nations and demand that she alone shall present a case which will pass muster before a heavenly tribunal. I am satisfied that, judged by the standard which other great nations, including China herself, have observed, Japan stands above them an in her international policy.
When this trouble broke out in Manchuria our ignorance of her history led us to look at the thing entirely as if it was something that had risen de novo.
There was trouble in Manchuria. Here we had the League of Nations. We said it was obvious that the matter must be brought before the League of Nations and it would soon be solved. It was not so easy as all that and the result has been that the League of Nations in the minds of many people has been discredited and condemned, and Japan has also been condemned because she has not been able to submit to everything that the League demanded. The trouble is that this new creation, only 12 years old, has been called upon to deal with an old problem as if it were an entirely new one.
The trouble dates back 30 or 40 years to something of which China has no great cause to be proud. The present situation would never have arisen if China, from fear and jealousy alike, after the Sino-Japanese War had not entered into secret negotiations with Russia in order to thwart Japan. That was the beginning of the trouble. This secret treaty was not brought to light until a few years ago, and now it is admitted that China was plotting against Japan. In the engineering which eventually led to the war between Japan and Russia, China did not come out with an altogether good record. I am not speaking against China any more than against Japan, but it is no use blaming Japan, because she has been the victim of circumstances to a much greater extent than many people realise. Manchuria came into the hands of Japan as a result of the war with Russia. Manchuria has been connected with China for some little time only. The Russians had many rights granted to them and the Japanese took them over. Even in recent times, in 1924, the war lord of Manchuria declared his independence of China, and actually initiated a treaty with Soviet Russia concerning the Chinese Eastern railway. I do not know how the matter stands to-day between the war lord of Manchuria and the Chinese Government. The war lord of Manchuria, whose name I will not inflict upon the House, has governed Manchuria entirely as his own affair, and has exploited it in such a way as to bring Manchuria into very great distress.
Japan, having become possessed of rights in Manchuria, proceeded to develop the South Manchurian Railway, and also to bring into that country a vast
amount of capital. What were her aims in so doing? An hon. Member opposite rightly dismissed the idea that Japan intended to colonise Manchuria. Many people, however, realising the serious population problem with which Japan is faced, at once assumed that Japan intended to colonise Manchuria. Certainly, if a nation needs some colonies, it is Japan, because it has a rapidly expanding population. Japan has never sought what we should call colonisation, but has tried to solve her population problem by means of emigration to other foreign countries, and she has been rebuffed wherever she has turned. Now Japan is seeking to solve her population problem in part by means of a more general public advocacy of birth control. Japan has never been able to solve her problem by colonisation, and she has certainly never sought to colonise Manchuria. The Manchurian climate does not suit the Japanese, but the result of some 30 years of Japanese influence in Manchuria has been that this sparsely populated province has increased its Chinese population from 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 to 30,000,000 or thereabout, and there are at the present time only 250,000 Japanese in Manchuria.
It is the Chinese who have benefited because of Japanese influence in Manchuria. The Chinese have flocked there because the Japanese have put their capital there, and they owe a great deal to Japan. Japan depends upon Manchuria, because Japan is a small country with only a limited amount of natural resources. She depends upon Manchuria for supplies of coal and iron ore, and also rice. There are many people who do not know that Japan cannot now produce all her own rice, and actually has to import about one-fifth of what she consumes. She depends upon Manchuria for those commodities. Again, she depends upon Manchuria and also upon China for foreign markets. Japan is a great industrial nation, and without foreign markets cannot hope to make progress. She has also brought great benefit to the Chinese in Manchuria by introducing the soya bean into western markets. The soya bean is now one of the great agricultural products of Manchuria. Therefore, there is a sort of mutual dependence of Japan upon Manchuria, and of the Chinese in Manchuria upon Japanese capital and Japanese railways.
What is the trouble? One of the chief troubles is that the lease of the railway rights which the Japanese took over from the Russians, with the consent of China, expires in two or three years' time. It was always assumed that the lease would be renewed, and in 1912 and 1913 other leases for other parts of Manchuria were granted to the Japanese in order to make branch railways. The Japanese became very nervous about the question of the actual renewal of the lease. It was absolutely vital that their position in Manchuria should properly be recognised and admitted by the Chinese, and therefore in 1915 Japan presented 21 points to China. There were people who objected very much to Japan's action, but they failed to see that Japan was getting pretty desperate. Japan presented those 21 points because she had something about which to bargain, and she was pleased to have some of those points granted, the chief of which was the extension of the lease of the South Manchurian Railway and a guarantee that the Chinese would not build any competing lines of railway. That was all that Japan got out of the 21 points.
Meanwhile, conditions grew worse in China. People fail to realise, when they take up the case of this peaceful, innocent China against this brutal aggressive Japan, that there have been 5,000,000 soldiers marauding throughout China for many years, and that China herself has suffered infinitely more from her own brigands than she has suffered, or can suffer, from any Japanese aggression. In Manchuria there was a regular army of 400,000 men living upon the industry of the people, and as Japanese prosperity was linked up with Chinese prosperity, Japan began to suffer enormous losses owing to the state of brigandage and war going on in China and Manchuria. Also, the Chinese began to build competing railway lines. All the time Japanese subjects were being molested, and Japanese officials were being injured and sometimes murdered. In fact, Japan was in a state of terror as to what was going to happen in Manchuria. She must have her rights recognised in Manchuria; otherwise, she would be ruined. Japan was suffering terribly economically, and the uncertain state of things in Manchuria was making her desperate. Japan up to that time had a very good Case. How is it that after the incident
of the 17th September last, Japan appeared to do such things as to present her in a very bad light to the Western world?
I would ask the House to come with me and to look briefly into the position of Japanese policy. In Japan there has been a battle fought on behalf of Liberalism. I do not use the word "Liberalism" in any narrow political sense and I do not want to give any wrong interpretation of it. Liberalism in Japan is making great progress. There can be no doubt about that fact. The first general election that was ever won on a real programme, as opposed to one by means of gerrymandering and so on, was won in 1930 by the Liberal party, which had the biggest majority which any party had hitherto had in the Japanese Diet. Up to 1930 Liberalism was very strong in Japan and practically all educated opinion—

Mr. SPEAKER: What has this to do with any Minister in this House?

Mr. PICKERING: My point is that the Minister has been attacked for asserting his attitude at the League Council, and I want to show the very great difficulty with which the League was faced in dealing with this problem. The problem is peculiarly difficult, not only in consequence of the fact that Japan had a good case up to a certain point, but that certain events have made it appear that her action has complicated the task before the League and made it difficult for this country and His Majesty's Government to satisfy public opinion as completely as they would wish. Of course, I must accept your Ruling. Japan is very pacific. My own students were almost to a man in favour of what could only be termed pacific nationalism, but all Japan was intimately interested in her rights in Manchuria. It was that which led to the events of 17th September. This brings me into close touch with the action of our own Government in regard to Japan. The Army in Japan is not under Cabinet control, but when the incidents occurred in Manchuria the Japanese Cabinet tried to preserve peace and when His Majesty's Government, along with other Governments in the League of Nations, took action, the Japanese Foreign Office said that they quite approved of what had been done but the
peaceful people in Japan were irritated that we should interfere because they were afraid that Japan would lose the rights that she had in Manchuria.
When the Leader of the Opposition suggests that Japan is afraid to submit her case to abitration he perhaps has not considered the difficulty that Japan had made a Treaty with China. China wanted the Treaty to which she had agreed rejected; she wanted to submit it to arbitration, but Japan said "No, the Treaty has been made and we will not submit it to arbitration. If a treaty like that can be rejected then the peace Treaty upon which the League of Nations depends is in jeopardy, because it may be said to have been forced on one set of signatories." Japan was, therefore, afraid that her rights in Manchuria would suffer. The fact that you have ruled me out of order, Mr. Speaker, makes it rather difficult for me to refer to the points I was going to make, but briefly it comes to this, that Japan has a very good case indeed. It was her own internal difficulties, the acute depression, which gave an opportunity to the reactionary elements to seize control and so prejudice Japan in the eyes of the League and in the eyes of the world. But actually her case still remains good, and the Japanese themselves are realising that they must do all they can to put their good case properly before the League of Nations. When the General Election took place the Conservative party won with a huge majority, but they are now seeking to form a National Government because they want—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now referring to matters outside the scope of the discussion.

Mr. PICKERING: I am quite satisfied that if this country will approach the problem of the settlement of this dispute with the idea of giving justice to both sides then peace will ensue.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Having heard the case put before the House so far as it affects what are called the rights of Japan, it is only right to examine one or two of the points that have led to the present dispute in Manchuria, and, incidentally, to the trouble in Shanghai. These are matters which are under consideration at the present time by a com-
mittee set up by the League itself. The hon. Member who has just spoken has emphasised the rights of Japan in Manchuria as a justification, in part, for many of the actions that Japan has taken in and round Shanghai. He spoke of the Japanese lack of faith in China as giving Japan certain rights in Manchuria. He mentioned the Treaty of 1915 as giving those rights to Japan. But surely he as a teacher, not a student, of Japanese thought must realise that that Treaty was forced upon China by Japan.

Mr. PICKERING: Practically every treaty made in this world can be said to have been forced on one side by the other.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member could not prove his point even if he had the whole of the next Parliamentary Session in which to bring forward examples to this House. He knows quite well that when the Great War broke out in Europe, and Japan had the policing of the Eastern seas, Japan forced upon China that infamous Treaty of the 21 points at a time when the European Powers were so busily engaged that they could not interfere. He must remember that the very last of those 21 points stated that if China divulged any of the conditions of the Treaty to any third Power, Japan would look upon it as an act of hostility. It. was a secret Treaty. China protested all along against the Treaty, which transformed China purely into a province of Japan. One condition was that the Japanese were jointly to control practically every institution in China.
10.30 p.m.
When the Peace Treaties were being discussed in Paris immediately after the Great War, China protested against any of the 21 Clauses being carried into effect, and it was because of the public agitation and indignation against Japan then that the 21-points Treaty was abandoned practically in its entirety, despite the fact that Great Britain had a Treaty with Japan, the Anglo-Japanese Treaty, at the time. It is no use the hon. Member telling this House what he be lieves to be the rights of Japan in Manchuria or in China. We all realise the difficulties with which Japan is faced. She requires expansion for her increasing population, but it is well-known to every Member of this House that Japan also had her eyes, and still has her eyes upon
Australia. Would the hon. Member justify Japan doing in Australia the things which she is doing in Manchuria and China?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now introducing an argument which seems a very long way from anything that concerns the subject before the House.

Mr. MACLEAN: I take it that Australia comes under our Dominions Office and I think I am perfectly right in asking that question in relation to a point which is at present before the League of Nations and upon which the Foreign Secretary reported to this House this afternoon. I submit that I am in order in asking that question in regard to a particular country whose doings have been the subject of discussion here this afternoon and are now before the League of Nations.

Mr. SPEAKER: What the hon. Member is now seeking to bring into the discussion, in regard to Japan arid Australia, has really nothing to do with the question which is before the League of Nations.

Mr. MACLEAN: I am using it as an illustration of the intentions of Japan prior to the War and I am asking the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pickering) and other hon. Members, if they would justify the things being done in Australia which they are attempting to justify in Manchuria. Surely, I have a right to argue that what would be wrong in Australia, one of our own Dominions, cannot be right in Manchuria, a province of China. That is sufficient I think to show the necessity—[An HON. MEMBER: "For a big Navy…"] for considering very impartially the whole question as regards China and Japan. Both are members of the League of Nations and the League has a right to consider what is being done by two countries which are part of the League itself. The Leader of the Opposition raised this question in order to get from the Foreign Secretary a definite statement of the view taken at the discussions in the League of Nations of the situation in Shanghai and in Manchuria. As far as the trouble between China and Japan—which is now under examination by a committee of the League of Nations—is
concerned, we can afford to leave on one side the 21-points Treaty, if justification is not sought to be made for it again in this House. We can afford to leave on one side various things which have transpired in China and Japan, until we get the report of the committee which is now examining on the spot the circumstances that have led to this disastrous and regrettable conflict between these two eastern Powers.
With regard to the League itself, I would put this question to the Government. We are pleased to hear from the Foreign Secretary of the attitude taken up by the League on this dispute, hut unless a more definite and a firmer attitude is taken by the League on matters affecting disputes between nations, we are likely to see in the future some other Powers flouting the Covenant of the League, in the same way in which it has been flouted in the East. It must be, if the League is to become the power which most of us desire it, to become that greater power shall be taken by the League itself in interfering in disputes between nations. Those of us who were in the House when the Peace Treaty was brought before the House, at the end of the War, remember all that was said about the War, what it had been fought for, and that it was a war to end war. We cannot afford to-day to allow another conflict, either in the East or in the West, to become the match that will set alight another disastrous conflagration over the world.
The next war will not be a war such as the last war was, bad as it was. An hon. and gallant Member, speaking in this House on the last occasion when disarmament was discussed, made the statement that the next war would be much more disastrous than anyone could conceive, and that whole populations living in the industrial belts would be swept out of existence by the chemical warfare that would be rained upon them from the sky; and we want to avert a disaster of that kind. We must see that the League of Nations is strengthened in its powers and that those whom we send to represent us at the League take up a firm attitude with regard to conflicts between nations. We must see also that in the action which they take and the propositions which they put forward for adoption by the League, they obtain from this
House and from the country wholehearted support in order to avert any future war coming upon the world.

Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should not have risen if it had not been for a remark which fell from the Leader of the Opposition, who, as I understood him, said that he thought the Government ought to surrender our extra-territorial privileges in China.

Mr. LANSBURY: All Governments, not ours only.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The right hon. Gentleman said that the British Government and other Governments ought to do so, and he founded that remark on the supposition—I am using his own words—that there was only a certain amount of civil disobedience in China at present. I do not agree with either of those propositions. The fact of the matter is that the Chinese Government at the present moment is not in effective control over the greater part of China. In three-quarters of China the writ of the Nanking Government does not run at all, yet China is a member of the League of Nations. I am very glad that China is a member of the League of Nations, but she certainly does not fulfil the conditions for membership of the League which were recently laid down by the Mandates Commission of the League of Nations. That Commission issued a very interesting report in November of last year and laid down five conditions which should govern the membership of a country in the League of Nations. In the first place, that country must have a settled Government and an administration capable of maintaining the regular operation of essential government services; in the second place, it must be capable of maintaining its territorial integrity; in the third place, it must be able to maintain public peace over the whole of its territory; in the fourth place, it must have at its disposal adequate financial resources to provide regularly for normal Government requirements; and, lastly, it must possess laws and a judicial organisation which will afford equal and regular justice to all. There is not one of those conditions that China fulfils at the present moment.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask whether the Government of which the right hon.
Gentleman was a member and with whose foreign affairs he was connected, or his chief, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain), at any time, when conditions in China were infinitely worse than they are now, ever raised one of those questions or whether any member of the League of Nations did?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: My right hon. Friend never proposed the abolition of extra-territoriality right away.

Mr. LANSBURY: Oh, yes he did; he negotiated for it for years.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: He negotiated for the gradual disappearance of extra-territoriality by international mutual agreement. The very fact that Manchuria has been recently declared independent proves that China is not capable of maintaining its territorial integrity. It is certainly unable to maintain the public peace, not only throughout the whole of its territory, but even in a very small proportion of it. The right hon. Gentleman talks about civil disobedience. There are independent armies marching all over the place and huge hordes of bandits, and very often the armies and the bandits are practically the same. It is notorious also that equal and regular justice is quite unknown. The fact of the matter is that China is not what can be called an organised State at all, and responsible Government is not in existence in the country. When you talk of China to-day, you are talking of a vast disorganised territory with no cementing central authority. Under Chinese administration to-day, the Government continually cannot implement the promises they make, and under Chinese rule property and life are not safe and the Chinese Government seem powerless to make them safe.
Therefore, in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition has asked the Government to do, I fervently hope that at this juncture the Government will suspend their negotiations for the surrender of our extra-territorial privileges. China is quite unable to protect foreigners. It is perfectly true that at the end of 1923 and from the beginning of 1927 my right hon. Friend the late Foreign Secretary gave a promise that extra-territoriality so far as we were concerned would be gradually abolished, but that abolition was to be
gradual in character and a matter of mutual international agreement. Since that time, we have had civil war, which has made the interior of China far worse than it was, and on top of that we have a foreign war, which has made it even worse still. Even in 1920 the Commission which sat on the whole question of extra-territoriality did not favour abolition until certain reforms had been carried out.
The right hon. Gentleman opposite must remember that that Commission was an international commission absolutely impartial, with a Chinese sitting on it. Their report, with the exception of certain details, was unanimous. They pointed out that martial law in China was declared with such frequency that normal administration of the law was gravely menaced. They also pointed out that ancient laws and principles continued side by side with new laws rendering the efficacy of the latter without any effect at all. They pointed out that military and naval courts exercised jurisdiction over the civil population even in peace time, that there was trial in camera, that legal counsel was denied, and that appeal was not allowed. They emphasised a very grave additional feature, namely, interference with the civil departments by the military leaders which upsets the normal administration of justice.
As I reminded the right hon. Gentleman before, this commission was an impartial commission, and international, with a Chinese member sitting on it, and their report was unanimous. I am sorry to say that in spite of this the Nanking Government declared extra-territoriality abolished as from January of last year. It is perfectly true that they have taken no practical steps up to the moment to carry out the decree, but I feel it to be very important that some kind of opinion ought to go forth from this House that China should realise the very strong international feeling against any such step being taken, except by gradual stages and by mutual international agreement. As I have said before, and everybody knows it is perfectly true, banditry and lawlessness are rife everywhere, and the risk to foreigners is, in consequence, quite formidable. I have no doubt that hon. Members and the right hon. Gentlemen opposite have read what is known as the Feetham Report, which I suppose is one
of the most important reports of that kind ever published, and which corroborates every single word of the report of the commission of 1926. There is in China to-day what is known as the independent body of missionaries, who are most strongly against the weakening the Shanghai by the rendition of that settlement or the abolition of the extra-territorial privileges.
Everybody knows that Shanghai has grown great on account of the security which is based on law and order in the international settlement, and there was a general agreement in the evidence collected by Mr. Justice Feetham, that if security is withdrawn Shanghai will sink to the level of those Chinese cities where there is no such security. In the international settlement in Shanghai the reign of law prevails, and Chinese, just as much as foreigners, can go about their business knowing that they will be immune from military interference and the arbitrary decrees of the executive; and in the other Chinese cities where this security does not exist conditions are exactly the opposite. Therefore, it seems to me that it is quite clear that there should be no surrender of our extraterritorial privileges until four conditions have been fulfilled. First, until internal conditions in China, and the control of the central Government, are so far improved that risk to the settlement from civil war has been removed. Second, until the idea of the rule of law has taken root in China, and a constitutional government has been established which can guarantee the independence of the courts and the enforcement of their decisions. Third, until local self-governing institutions enjoy real independence without being subject to orders from the National Government or the control of any party organisation. Fourth, until the Chinese community in the settlement have acquired sufficient experience in working representative institutions to enable them to assume responsibility for the administration of the settlement with a reasonable prospect of success. I cannot believe that you can wipe out extraterritoriality and leave nothing whatever in its place. There is no constitutional Government in China at the present moment. The Chinese Government, even when it functions, is merely an instrument through which the party of the
Kuomintang exercises a dictatorship. Everybody knows that. No other party can exist at present, and there are no effective legal limits to its power, and therefore the courts of justice are not effective. The executive of the Kuomintang can make laws and unmake them. There is unlawful seizure and taxation and confiscation by Government officials which never come before the court of justice at all. That being so, it does seem to me that the only solution is some kind of international treaty or agreement to provide an element of stability and security in China, and I do hope that it is along that path that the Government are going to proceed.

Mr. EMRYS-EVANS: I would ask for that indulgence which the House always gives when a new Member addresses it. I cannot claim that intimate knowledge of China and Japan which many hon. Members possess, but events which have occurred during the last few months in the Far East have raised larger and wider issues than those which are merely concerned with that region, important as it is. Ever since the Japanese Admiral took certain action at Shanghai—whatever views we may take about that action—the instruments which have been so carefully set up since the War in order to deal with international affairs and place them on a new basis, have been seriously tested. I do not feel, in spite of the fact that they are being tested and that weak places are being found out, that there is any reason for despair, or to feel that the whole structure is in ruins. After all, the League has been challenged a number of times since it came into being. It has been challenged even in the very heart of Europe, and I feel that if it is challenged once again in a distant part of the world, even though that challenge is a serious one, there is no reason why it should not be overcome by the wise and sensible courses which have been taken in the past. Though hostilities came to an end in Europe as long ago as 1918, I do not think any of us will feel in the last few years that we have been living in a period of normal conditions. In fact, I think it has been more a period of gradual pacification, and if that view is true, as I believe it is true, then the slow progress of both disarmament and the Sino-Japanese crisis may be looked upon, not as challenges to the new order, but
as something of a legacy from the more stormy past.
There are one or two factors with regard to this crisis which have arisen in the Far East, which are in themselves not surprising, but in regard to which the action which has coma from one direction is indeed surprising. Whenever demands have been made from certain directions that Sanctions should be applied, I think those demands have arisen very largely from the fact that there is a certain confusion of thought in regard to what has been described as an international police force. An international police force can only be effective if there is overwhelming public opinion behind it, and it can only be effective if it represents a firm and strong Government. No such public opinion at present exists in the international sphere. The result would be that if Sanctions were actually applied there would be no police force in the ordinary sense of the word to put them into effect, and the League would in the end be dependant on that authority which speaks through machine guns. The League cannot act with the same vigour, the same freedom and the same speed as a nation. I think there is a great deal of misconception with regard to the League. It is a League of Nations, not a sort of super-State; it has power, and its great power is in focussing public opinion upon particular questions.
Let us take the case of Shanghai. I think that it is particularly impressive. After national animosities had been aroused, after the warlike spirit was abroad, and after prestige had been involved, the nations represented at the League of Nations with different traditions and in different stages of development could apply themselves to a particular issue. There was no question of military or of economic sanctions, and yet we find that the Japanese and Chinese are gradually coming together. I believe that this has been brought about because the public opinion of the world has been mobilised and only moral sanctions have been applied.
11.0 p.m.
Very closely linked with the question of Shanghai is the question of Disarmament which began at the same moment as the crisis occurred at Shanghai and which, therefore, brought the problems which the Disarmament Conference had
to face very close to the men who were sitting round the table when the Conference opened at Geneva. The task of the Disarmament Conference is a distinctly limited one. You can limit the size of ships and guns, and you can come to an arrangement as to the size of armies, navies and air forces. I hope the Conference will abolish submarines and poison gas, but of one thing I am convinced, that we can never make war a gentlemanly or a pleasant profession. The causes of international friction really lie much deeper, and the Disarmament Conference can only deal with one side of the question. Every country since the War has paid lip service to the cause of peace, but no country except our own has really carried out disarmament; in fact, other countries have feverishly prepared for war at the same time as they profess peace. But the real problem which faces Europe at the present time and which is intimately connected with the Disarmament Conference is the fact that as far as wars are concerned they are not any longer merely concerned with armaments. Every field, every bit of livestock, the whole energy and force of the nation, must be mobilised in the future when war breaks out, and we have seen the development throughout Europe of an effort to create self-contained economic units. If we are to break down those barriers, we must remove the intangible and tangible fears which are now causing divisions between nations. We hear a great deal about national planning, but it seems to me that the day has arrived when we should attack the question of international planning, in order to reopen the trade routes and re-establish the means of exchange. I believe that the Government, by their action in supporting the effort to reconstruct the Succession States on the Danube, are laying a foundation even more important than will be laid by the Disarmament Conference. I do not believe that we shall make any headway until we attack these economic and political questions at the same time as the Disarmament question. An hon. Member on the other side said recently that he had a great terror of the next war. I must confess that I share that terror. But I think the day has come when we should think less of terror and more of courage in facing the problems
which are immediately before us. There is a real danger that, if we look back too long and too intently on the burning cities, we may well share the fate of Lot's wife.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): It happily falls to my lot to express the sincere congratulations of the House to my hon Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Emrys-Evans) on the very interesting and suggestive maiden speech which ha has just made to the House. We hope that in the future he may give us the further benefit of his lucid and briefly expressed remarks, which in this case contained so much valuable suggestion.
This Debate, despite the inevitable interruption, has been the occasion of several important speeches, and I feel sure that I shall be expressing the view of the House if I first express our appreciation of that delivered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone (Sir R. Rodd). I hope that the forecast which he made that it was the last speech that he was likely to make in our Foreign Office Debates may not be well founded, for we have so often and so gladly had the benefit of his advice and help in the past that we should all feel the absence of that help in the future.
I do not want to detain the House long at this late hour, but I think I cannot do better than reply first to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition about Disarmament. The right hon. Gentleman seemed rather to complain that, in some of the speeches made during the Debates on the various Service Estimates, there were suggestions that the Government would have to reconsider the amount that they were spending upon armaments; but those suggestions, as I feel sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, were all based on the assumption, which I hope, and which the whole House will hope, may prove to be false, that the Disarmament Conference might fail to effect a material reduction in world armaments. If the Conference were so to fail, it must be evident to all that this country which, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire has said, is giving the world a lead in the matter of Disarmament, would obviously be compelled to reconsider its position in the light of facts as
they then were. It is sincerely to be hoped that that eventuality will not have to be faced this year, but it is one that no Government bringing in its Estimates can afford to ignore. What are the prospects for that Conference? I think it was my right hon. Friend who quoted at the Assembly the cynical remark that there had never been a conference from which more was hoped and less expected, but in fact I think it is true to say the earlier debates of the Disarmament Conference were distinctly hopeful. I am sure there was a greater measure of agreement than some had dared to hope for. Since then the Conference has been engaged upon more technical matters, very largely upon the arrangement of its programme. After Easter the Conference will resume for its most serious business, and the right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the Government will be very fully represented throughout those proceedings as it has been heretofore, and will not hesitate to make its contribution to secure that world reduction of armaments which has for so long been our ambition.
As to the Far East, I think this Debate has revealed a very wide measure, perhaps an unexpectedly wide measure, of support for the policy which the Government have been and are still pursuing. The only suggestion of criticism has been that in the pursuit of that policy the Government might perhaps have shown itself a little more vigorous. That was particularly the point of view of the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Cocks). I wonder whether he and those who share that view have sufficiently considered the basic ambition which the Government have felt throughout this difficult time—the determination, in seeking a solution of the problem, to secure the active and continuous co-operation both of the League and of the United States. I think some of those who wish that we might have been a little more eager than we have been in the prosecution of what they call a forward policy may perhaps have overlooked the fact that, had we indulged in such eagerness as they would wish, we might have found ourselves acting alone, and isolated action at a time like this would not only have been unwise and ineffective, but, worse still, would have been directly harmful, for
it would have broken up that collective action which we can alone hope to make effective in a situation such as this. I think equally this Debate has been notable for the restraint and strict sense of responsibility which has actuated each one of the speakers, and I do not think we could say that a similar rectitude has always been displayed outside the House. There have been one or two in recent weeks who have preferred to brandish the sword in the cause of peace. Of these I have only to say that a man, in my judgment, is no less a Jingo if he makes pacifism the pretext for his Jingoism. Fortunately, the Government is happy in the possession of a generous amount of advice as to how to treat those who speak with less than the usual responsibility of these difficult matters. Six years ago no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) gave the Government of that day, at a similar crisis, a warning Against those anxious to work up war in the Far East. We shall heed the warning of the right hon. Gentleman, and also his still more definite declaration at that time. The most menacing symptom, he said, was the uttering of high-sounding phrases which constituted the tocsin of war. Anybody who indulges in the uttering of such phrases to-day may be assured that they will fall upon deaf ears in this country, and I hope they will fall upon deaf ears in the world outside.
One or two hon. Members have raised technical points of great importance to this country, more particularly in relation to the position in Manchuria. As to that I would only say this. While negotiations are in progress I would like to assure the House that we are not unmindful of these important individual points where British interests are concerned. While we shall do our utmost to promote general agreement, we shall not lose sight of important British interests in the meanwhile. The hon. Member for Broxtowe gave us a long record of events in Manchuria. I am neither going to follow his history nor attempt, as I might like to do here and there, to correct him. I would only remind him that this is a controversy of 30 years' duration or more, and that the more we have an opportunity of studying it the more fearful are we to enter upon this phase in the difficult situation. I do not share
the hon. Gentleman's complaint that the matter has not been dealt with more promptly. He said that the Commission which has gone out there has very insufficient powers. I do not think so. I find it hard to imagine a Commission with wider powers. Here in a sentence are its terms of reference. This is from the Resolution of the Council:
To appoint a Commission of five members to study on the spot and to report to the council on any circumstances which affect international relations or threatens to disturb the peace between China and Japan or the good understanding between them on which peace depends.
I find it very hard to believe that the terms of reference could be drawn wider.

Mr. COCKS: I did not say that they had insufficient powers but that the powers had been limited; flat the powers originally suggested for them had been reduced.

Mr. EDEN: It seems to me that those powers are amply wide enough to meet any consideration it is possible to conceive. I think that a Commission which has power to consider any circumstances affecting relations between China and Japan has as wide an authority as anyone could suggest.

Mr. COCKS: The powers taken from them were the powers to bring about the withdrawal of Japanese forces to the railway zone.

Mr. EDEN: I am well aware what the hon. Member has in mind, but the point I am making is that the Commission has powers amply wide enough to come to a decision, and that the enforcement of the judgment must be left to others. The terms of reference are, we are convinced, sufficient for the purpose of the Commission, and we shall be well advised to leave to them the inquiry into this vexed question, believing that they are well capable of making good use of the wide powers which have been given to them. In this Debate there were two points of view which hon. Members had in mind. There were those, like the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who were concerned with the immediate position in Shanghai and Manchuria; what we may call the short-range policy. As to that, the House
knows the means by which we are hoping to bring about an improvement in the situation and knows also that the outlook at present is certainly more promising than it has been at any time since the unhappy dispute began.
But there is an equally big issue which was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) in his most interesting speech. He referred to the future relations of this country with. China. I think it will be generally accepted that there has been a definite improvement in our relations with China in the past five years, and I think that that improvement can definitely be dated from the combination of firmness in the defence of well-established British as well as other foreign interests and of sympathy with just Chinese aspirations, which formed the policy of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Sir A. Chamberlain). That policy has been the British policy ever since and will, I trust, continue to be the underlying principle which guides us. We hope that when the present unhappy circumstances are over the Chinese Government will prove itself able to deal with those difficulties which have so often in the past been the cause of trouble to itself and its friends, and will be able to re-establish a Government in effective control of the whole country. All we seek is trade upon mutually satisfactory conditions, and for that we need a policy of friendship and good faith on both sides. We have had it for many generations in China. It has been growing in strength in recent years, and it will be our effort continually to give it further encouragement, mindful both of the great interests of our people in China and of our traditional friendship and sympathy with their aspirations.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.

Orders of the Day — TANGANYIKA AND BRITISH HONDURAS LOANS BILL.

Read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — SKY-WRITING

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the use of appliances for projecting writing or other displays on the sky, or for broadcasting speech or other sounds from aircraft, and to report on the desirability of legislation in this connection.
Mr. Buchan, Captain Bullock, Mr. Cocks, Major Llewellin, Mr. Llewellyn-Jones, Mr. Lovat-Fraser, Mr. Mander, Mr. McEntee, Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, Mr. Parkinson, and Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records:

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum.—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES

Ordered,
That Major Llewellin be discharged from the Select Committee on Estimates and that Mr. Law be added to the Committee."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Sir F. Thomson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes after Eleven o' Clock.